The United Nations Human Rights Council:
Issues for Congress

Luisa Blanchfield
Specialist in International Relations
May 4, 2010
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RL33608
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress

The United Nations Human Rights Council: Issues for Congress

Summary
On March 15, 2006, the U.N. General Assembly passed a resolution replacing the Commission on
Human Rights with a new Human Rights Council (the Council). The U.N. Secretariat and some
governments, including the United States, view the establishment of the Council as a key
component of comprehensive U.N. reform. The Council was designed to be an improvement over
the Commission, which was widely criticized for the composition of its membership when
perceived human rights abusers were elected as members. The General Assembly resolution
creating the Council, among other things, increased the number of meetings per year and
introduced a “universal periodic review” process to assess each member state’s fulfillment of its
human rights obligations.
One hundred seventy countries voted in favor of the resolution to create the Council. The United
States, under the George W. Bush Administration, was one of four countries to vote against the
resolution. The Administration maintained that the Council structure was no better than the
Commission and that it lacked mechanisms for “maintaining credible membership.” It initially
stated that it would fund and support the work of the Council. During the Council’s first two
years, however, the Administration expressed concern with the Council’s focus on Israel and lack
of attention to other human rights situations. In April 2008, the Bush Administration announced
that the United States would withhold a portion of its contributions to the 2008 U.N. regular
budget equivalent to the U.S. share of the Human Rights Council budget. In June 2008, it further
announced that the United States would engage with the Council “only in matters of deep
national interest.”
The Barack Obama Administration participated as an observer in the 10th regular session of the
Human Rights Council (held in March 2009). The Administration stated that it furthers the United
States’ interest “if we are part of the conversation and present at the Council’s proceedings.” At
the same time, however, it called the Council’s trajectory “disturbing,” particularly its “repeated
and unbalanced” criticisms of Israel. In March 2009, the Obama Administration announced that it
would run for a seat on the Council. The United States was elected as a Council Member by the
U.N. General Assembly on May 12, 2009, and its term began on June 19, 2009.
Since its establishment, the Council has held 13 regular sessions and 13 special sessions. The
regular sessions addressed a combination of specific human rights abuses and procedural and
structural issues. Six of the 13 special sessions addressed the human rights situation in the
Occupied Palestinian Territories and in Lebanon. Other special sessions focused on the human
rights situations in Burma (Myanmar), Darfur, Sri Lanka, and Haiti.
Congress maintains an ongoing interest in the credibility and effectiveness of the Council in the
context of both human rights and broader U.N. reform. In the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009
(Division H, the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations
Act, 2009 of P.L. 111-8), for example, Congress prohibited U.S. contributions to support the
Council unless (1) the Secretary of State certifies to the Committees on Appropriations that
funding the Council is “in the national interest of the United States” or (2) the United States is a
member of the Council. Withholding Council funds in this manner would be a largely symbolic
policy action because assessed contributions finance the entire U.N. regular budget and not
specific parts of it. This report will be updated as events warrant.

Congressional Research Service

The United Nations Human Rights Council: Issues for Congress

Contents
Background ................................................................................................................................ 1
Overview of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights............................................................ 1
The United States and U.N. Human Rights Efforts ................................................................ 2
The U.N. Human Rights Council and U.N. Reform ............................................................... 3
Council Mandate, Structure, and Procedures................................................................................ 3
Mandate and Responsibilities ................................................................................................ 3
Structure and Composition .................................................................................................... 4
Overview of the Council’s Work and Elections............................................................................ 8
Institution-Building Framework: Controversial Issues and the Secretary-General’s
Response ........................................................................................................................... 9
Election Results .................................................................................................................. 10
U.S. Response........................................................................................................................... 10
Obama Administration ........................................................................................................ 10
George W. Bush Administration .......................................................................................... 11
Congressional Actions......................................................................................................... 12
Congressional Issues ................................................................................................................. 12
U.S. Funding of the Council ................................................................................................ 13
Effectiveness of the Council................................................................................................ 13
The “Goldstone Report” on Human Rights in Palestine and Other Occupied Arab
Territories ........................................................................................................................ 14
The Council and Alleged U.S. Human Rights Abuses .......................................................... 15

Tables
Table 1. Special Sessions of the Human Rights Council............................................................... 8
Table A-1. Human Rights Council Membership, by Regional Group ......................................... 19

Appendixes
Appendix. Human Rights Council Membership......................................................................... 19

Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 19

Congressional Research Service

The United Nations Human Rights Council: Issues for Congress

Background
Overview of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights1
The U.N. Human Rights Commission (the Commission) was the primary intergovernmental
policymaking body for human rights issues before it was replaced by the U.N. Human Rights
Council (the Council) in 2006. Created in 1946 as a subsidiary body of the U.N. Economic and
Social Council (ECOSOC),2 the Commission’s initial mandate was to establish international
human rights standards and develop an international bill of rights. One of the Commission’s
notable successes was the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the U.N. General
Assembly on December 10, 1948.3 During its tenure, the Commission played a key role in
developing a comprehensive body of human rights laws and regulations.4 Over time, its work
evolved to address specific human rights violations and complaints as well as broader human
rights issues. It developed a system of special procedures to monitor, analyze and report on
human rights violations. The procedures addressed country-specific human rights violations, as
well as “thematic” crosscutting human rights abuses such as racial discrimination, religious
intolerance, and denial of freedom of expression.5
In recent years, controversy developed over the human rights records of Commission members.
Countries widely perceived as systematic abusers of human rights were elected as members. In
2001, Sudan, a country broadly criticized by governments and human rights groups for ethnic
cleansing in its Darfur region, was elected. Sudan was reelected in 2004, prompting outrage from
human rights organizations and causing the United States to walk out of the Commission chamber
in protest. 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.6 In 2005, the collective
impact of these controversies led U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan to propose the idea of a
new and smaller Council to replace the Commission. On March 15, 2006, the U.N. General
Assembly approved a resolution to dissolve the Commission and create the Council in its place.
The Commission held its final meeting in Geneva, Switzerland, on June 16, 2006, where, among
other actions, it transferred its reports and responsibilities to the new Council.

1 For further information on the background and evolution on the Commission on Human Rights, see CRS Report
RS20110, The United Nations Commission on Human Rights: Background and Issues, by Vita Bite (archived; available
from the author of this report).
2 ECOSOC is a principal organ of the United Nations that coordinates the economic and social work of the specialized
U.N. agencies. It is comprised of 54 member governments elected to three-year terms by the U.N. General Assembly.
3 The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by General Assembly resolution 217 A (III), December 10,
1948, and can be viewed at http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html.
4 This includes the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which entered into force on March 23, 1976,
and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, which entered into force on January 3, 1976.
The United States signed both treaties on October 5, 1977, and ratified the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on
June 8, 1992.
5 Other examples of thematic mandates include the right to development; the right to education; the rights of migrants;
and the right to food.
6 “A New Chapter for Human Rights: A handbook on issues of transition from the Commission on Human Rights to the
Human Rights Council,” International Service for Human Rights and Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, June 2006.
Congressional Research Service
1

The United Nations Human Rights Council: Issues for Congress

The 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.7 Its mandate is to promote and protect human rights worldwide through
international cooperation, and through the coordination and streamlining of human rights efforts
within the U.N. system. The OHCHR provided general support to the Commission and will
continue to do so for the Council, working specifically with Council experts to document human
rights violations.
The United States and U.N. Human Rights Efforts
The United States is generally supportive of human rights mechanisms at the United Nations. It
played a key role in creating the Commission on Human Rights in 1946, and was a member and
active participant of the Commission until it lost its first election in 2001. It was restored to the
Commission the following year by election. In 2005, the United States supported doubling the
U.N. regular budget resources of OHCHR. This increased the U.N. regular budget for human
rights activities from $64 million in 2004-2005 to $83 million in 2006-2007. Congress has also
demonstrated continued support for U.N. human rights bodies, often using the mechanisms and
special procedures of the Commission to call attention to the human rights abuses of countries
such as Cuba and China.8 In addition, Congress receives annual Country Reports on Human
Rights Practices from the Secretary of State as mandated by the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.9
The Secretary of State is required, among other things, to submit reports on countries that are
members of the United Nations.
There were instances when both Congress and the executive branch had been critical of the
Commission. In 1997, controversy emerged between the U.S. government and the Commission
when the Commission appointed a Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary, and Arbitrary
Executions who, among other things, analyzed how the death penalty is implemented in the
United States.10 The Rapporteur reported that economic status, ethnicity, and racial discrimination
were indicators for death penalty verdicts, reportedly prompting then-Senator Jesse Helms to
declare the Special Rapporteur’s mission “an absurd U.N. charade.”11
In 2001, more controversy followed when the United States was not elected to the Commission
and widely perceived human rights violators such as Pakistan, Sudan, and Uganda were elected.

7 Pillay’s appointment was confirmed by consensus on July 28, 2008, and her term began on September 1, 2008. She
succeeded the previous High Commissioner, Louise Arbour of Canada. Pillay is the fifth U.N. High Commissioner for
Human Rights since the office was established 15 years ago. The OHCHR has just under 1,000 staff working in 50
countries with a budget of approximately $150 million.
8 Examples include H.Con.Res. 83, introduced on March 3, 2005 [109th], Urging the appropriate representative of the
United States to the 61st session of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights to introduce a resolution calling on the
Government of the People’s Republic of China to end its human rights violations; and H.Res. 91 [107th], passed/agreed
to in the House of Representatives on April 3, 2001, urging the President to make all necessary efforts to obtain passage
during the 2001 meetings of the Commission on Human Rights of a resolution condemning the Cuban government for
its human rights abuses.
9 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices are submitted to Congress in compliance with Sections 116(d) and
502B(b) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended.
10 Bacre Waly Ndiaye, Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, U.N.
document E/CN.4/1998/68/Add.3, January 22, 1998.
11 Elizabeth Olson, “U.N. Report Criticizes U.S. for ‘Racist’ Use of Death Penalty,” The New York Times, April 7,
1998.
Congressional Research Service
2

The United Nations Human Rights Council: Issues for Congress

The Bush Administration and Congress were frustrated and disappointed by the election outcome.
The House of Representatives reacted with a Foreign Relations Authorization Act amendment
that linked payment of U.S. arrears to the U.N. regular budget with the United States regaining a
seat on the Commission.12 The Administration, however, stated it would not link U.S. payment of
U.N. dues and arrears to the outcome of the Commission elections.13 Given the controversy over
the Commission, both Congress and the Administration supported the U.N. Secretary-General’s
2005 proposal that the Commission be disbanded and a new Council created.
The U.N. Human Rights Council and U.N. Reform
The establishment of the U.N. Human Rights Council was part of a comprehensive U.N. reform
effort by former U.N. Secretary-General Annan and member states. In March 2005, the 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.”14 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.
Council Mandate, Structure, and Procedures
Mandate and Responsibilities
On March 15, 2006, the U.N. General Assembly passed resolution A/RES/60/251, which
established the Council and outlined its purpose and responsibilities.15 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.”

12 For more information on this congressional action, see CRS Report RS20110, The United Nations Commission on
Human Rights: Background and Issues
, by Vita Bite, pp. 3-4 (archived; available from the author of this report).
13 Press Conference of the President, Office of the Press Secretary, The White House, May 11, 2001.
14 “U.S. Priorities for a Stronger, More Effective United Nations,” U.S. Department of State publication, June 17, 2005.
Other Administration reform priorities included budget, management, and administrative reform, Democracy
initiatives, and the creation of a comprehensive Convention on Terrorism.
15 One hundred seventy countries voted in favor of the U.N. General Assembly resolution creating the Council; four
voted against (Israel, Marshall Islands, Palau, and the United States), and three abstained (Belarus, Iran, and
Venezuela).
Congressional Research Service
3

The United Nations Human Rights Council: Issues for Congress

The Council will “address situations of violations of human rights, including gross and systematic
violations, and make recommendations thereon.” It may also promote and coordinate the
mainstreaming of human rights within the U.N. system. In order to achieve the above goals, the
Council undertakes a universal periodic review of each U.N. Member State’s fulfillment of its
human rights obligations and commitments. (See the “Universal Periodic 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 continues to collaborate
with OHCHR. It works to maintain and improve the system of special mandates, expert advice,
and complaint procedures instituted by the Commission. Under the resolution, the Council also:
• promotes human rights education, advisory services, technical assistance, and
capacity building with relevant member states;
• serves as a forum for dialogue on thematic human rights issues and recommend
opportunities for the development of international human rights law to the U.N.
General Assembly; and
• promotes the full implementation of human rights obligations by member states,
and follow-up on human rights commitments from other U.N. conferences and
summits.16
Structure and Composition
On June 18, 2007, the Council adopted a resolution entitled “Institution-Building of the United
Nations Human Rights Council” that addressed many critical details related to the work of the
Council, including its mechanisms, procedures, framework, and system of universal periodic
review.17 Some aspects of the Council’s work, however, continues to be debated and determined
by Council members. This section addresses current structural elements of the Council. Key
differences between the Council and the Commission are noted where relevant.
Status Within U.N. Framework
The Council is designated a subsidiary body of the General Assembly, whereas the Commission
was a subsidiary body of ECOSOC. This change enhances the standing of human rights within
the U.N. framework. In its new capacity, the Human Rights Council reports directly to the
General Assembly’s 192 members instead of to ECOSOC’s 54 members.

16 The mandates and responsibilities are drawn from U.N. document, A/RES/60/251, March 15, 2006.
17During 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.
Congressional Research Service
4

The United Nations Human Rights Council: Issues for Congress

Membership
The Council comprises 47 members apportioned by geographic region as follows: 13 from
African states; 13 from Asian states; six from Eastern Europe states; eight from Latin America
and the Caribbean states; and seven from Western European and other states. Members are
elected for a period of three years and may not hold a Council seat for more than two consecutive
terms. If a Council member commits “gross and systematic violations of human rights,” the
General Assembly may suspend membership with a two-thirds vote of members present. For
comparison, the Commission was composed of 53 member states elected by members of the
ECOSOC. Countries served three year terms with no term limits. Like the Commission, the
Council created a formula to ensure equitable distribution of seats by region.18
Elections
All U.N. member states are eligible to run for election to the Council. Countries are elected
through secret ballot by the General Assembly with an absolute majority (97 out of 192 votes)
required. The resolution instructs countries to consider “the contribution of candidates to the
promotion and protection of human rights and their voluntary pledges and commitments” when
voting for Council members. A country submitting its name for election must affirm its
commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights with a written pledge.
A key difference between the Council and the Commission is the direct election of Council
members by the U.N. General Assembly. Under the Commission, candidates were first nominated
by their regional groups and then the nominees were submitted for election by members of
ECOSOC. Regional groups often sent the same number of nominees to the election as there were
seats available. This meant some member states might cast votes for countries with questionable
human rights records in order to fill all regional group seats. The next election will be held in
May or June of 2010, and 14 of the 47 Council seats will be open.
Structure
The Council holds an organizational meeting at the beginning of each Council year. The Council
president presides over the election of four vice-presidents representing other regional groups in
the Council.19 The president and vice-presidents form the Council Bureau, which is responsible
for all procedural and organizational matters related to the Council. At the meeting, members
elect a president from among Bureau members for a one-year term. The current president is
Ambassador Alex Van Meeuwen of Belgium. Under the Commission, the role of president was
held by a chairperson.

18 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.
19Current Vice-Presidents are Hisham Badr (Egypt), Dian Triansyah Djani (Indonesia), Carlos Portales (Chile), and
Andrej Logar (Slovenia).
Congressional Research Service
5

The United Nations Human Rights Council: Issues for Congress

Meetings
The Council is headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, and meets for three or more sessions per
year for a total of 10 weeks or more, including a high-level session. It can hold special sessions at
the request of any Council member with the support of one-third of the Council membership. By
contrast, the Commission on Human rights met in Geneva once a year for approximately six
weeks, and since 1990 special sessions were held on request.20
Reporting
The Council submits annual reports directly to the General Assembly. At the end of its first five
years, the Council is also required to review and report to the General Assembly on its work and
functioning. The Commission submitted reports primarily to ECOSOC, a limited membership
body, which reported Commission activities to the General Assembly. In some instances, a special
rapporteur addressing a specific human rights situation or issue might report directly to both the
Commission and the General Assembly
Rules of Procedure
The Council follows the rules of procedure created for committees of the General Assembly.21
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. These rules encourage consultation
and interaction at Council sessions among Council members, observing U.N. member states,
NGOs, and other relevant organizations. Countries that are not Council members do not have
voting rights.
Universal Periodic Review
All Council members and U.N. member states are required to undergo a universal periodic review
(UPR) that examines a state’s fulfillment of its human rights obligations and commitments. The
review is an intergovernmental process that facilitates an interactive dialogue between the country
under review and the UPR working group, which is composed of the 47 Council members and
chaired by the Council President. The first UPR cycle lasts four years, with Council members
evaluating 48 states per year during three two-week sessions (six weeks total). Observer states
may attend and speak at the working group, and relevant stakeholders (such as NGOs) may also
attend the meetings and present information that is assembled by OHCHR. All Council members
will undergo a review during the term of their membership. The United States is scheduled to
undergo its first UPR in November 2010.
UPR is based on the principles of the U.N. Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
and the human rights instruments to which the state under review is party. Voluntary pledges by

20 Examples of Special Sessions under the Commission included Situation of human rights in Rwanda (1994); Situation
in East Timor (1999); and “Grave and massive violations” of the human rights of the Palestinian people by Israel
(2000).
21 General Assembly Rules of Procedure can be viewed at http://www.un.org/ga/60/ga_rules.html. The Commission on
Human Rights followed ECOSOC rules of procedure.
Congressional Research Service
6

The United Nations Human Rights Council: Issues for Congress

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.
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.22 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.23
Complaint Procedure
The Council maintains a complaint procedure that allows individuals and groups to report human
rights abuses in a confidential setting. The goal of the procedure is to objectively and efficiently
facilitate dialogue and cooperation among the accused state, Council members, and the
complainant(s). A working group on Communications and a working group on Situations evaluate
the complaints and bring them to the attention of the Council.24 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

22 For more information on Council special procedures, see http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/chr/special/
index.htm.
23 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.
24 For more information on the complaint procedures, see http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/chr/complaints.htm.
Congressional Research Service
7

The United Nations Human Rights Council: Issues for Congress

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.25 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.26
Overview of the Council’s Work and Elections
Since it was established in March 2006, the Council has held 13 regular sessions and 13 special
sessions.27 The regular sessions addressed a mixture of procedural and substantive issues, with a
focus on improving working methods of the Council. Six of the Council’s 13 special sessions
have focused on Israeli human rights violations in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Lebanon, or
East Jerusalem. Others have addressed the human rights situation in the Democratic Republic of
the Congo, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Haiti, and Burma (Myanmar), as well as the impact of the world
food crisis and the global economic crisis on human rights (see Table 1).
Table 1. Special Sessions of the Human Rights Council
Session/Subject
Dates
1st Special Session: Human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory
July 5-6, 2006
2nd Special Session: Grave situation of Human Rights in Lebanon caused by Israeli Military
August
10-11,
Operations
2006
3rd Special Session: Israeli Military Incursions in the Occupied Palestinian Territories
November 15,
2006
4th Special Session: Human Rights Situation in Darfur
December 12-
13, 2006
5th Special Session: Human Rights Situation in Myanmar (Burma)
October 2, 2007
6th Special Session: Violations Stemming from Israeli Incursions in the Occupied Palestinian
January 24, 2008
Territory
7th Special Session: Negative Impact on the Realization of the Rights to Food of the
May 22, 2008
Worsening of the World Food Crisis, Caused inter alia by the Soaring Food Prices
8th Special Session: Situation of the Human Rights in the East of the Democratic Republic of November
28,
the Congo
2008
9th Special Session: The Grave Violations of Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian
January
9,
2009
Territory including the recent aggression in the occupied Gaza Strip
10th Special Session: The Impact of the Global Economic and Financial Crises on the
February 20,

25 For more information on the Advisory Committee, see http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/
advisorycommittee.htm.
26 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.
27 A synopsis of the Human Rights Council regular and special sessions is available from the author of this report.
Information on these sessions is also available at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/.
Congressional Research Service
8

The United Nations Human Rights Council: Issues for Congress

Session/Subject
Dates
Universal Realization and Effective Enjoyment of Human Rights
2009
11th Special Session: The human rights situation in Sri Lanka
May 26, 2009
12th Special Session: The human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and
October
15-16,
East Jerusalem
2009
13th Special Session: Support to the recovery process in Haiti: A Human Rights approach
January 27, 2010
Source: U.N. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
Institution-Building Framework: Controversial Issues and the
Secretary-General’s Response

In June 2007, Council members adopted an institution-building resolution to address the
Council’s working methods. In the resolution, Council members identified the “Human rights
situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories,” as a permanent part of the Council’s
agenda and framework for its future program of work. The Council also established a mechanism
for confidential complaint procedures, as well as Council rules of procedure. In addition, the text
stated the need for “proposers of a country resolution to secure the broadest possible support for
their initiatives (preferably 15 members), before action is taken.”28 Council members also
terminated the mandates of the special rapporteur for Belarus and Cuba.29
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.30 At the conclusion of the Council’s fifth regular session in Geneva in June
2007, a U.N. spokesperson noted Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s “disappointment” with the
Council’s decision to “single out only one specific regional item, given the range and scope of
allegations of human rights violations throughout the world.”31 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.”32 Ban, however, welcomed and supported the new procedures for universal
periodic review, calling them “strong and meaningful,” and noting that they “send a clear

28 U.N. document A/HRC/5/L.11, p. 29. This provision was a point of contention among Council members. During
negotiations, China maintained that a two-thirds majority should be required to take action on country-specific
resolutions—a position that EU countries did not accept. Multiple credible sources confirm that the European Union
(EU) agreed to terminate the Council’s Cuba and Belarus mandates if China would agree to the language in the adopted
text.
29 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).
30 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.
31 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.
32 U.N. press release, “Secretary-General Urges Human Rights Council to Take Responsibilities Seriously, Stresses
Importance of Considering All Violations Equally,” June 20, 2007, available at http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/
2007/sgsm11053.doc.htm.
Congressional Research Service
9

The United Nations Human Rights Council: Issues for Congress

message that all countries will have their human rights record and performance examined at
regular intervals.”33
Election Results
The Human Rights Council has held four elections. The most recent Council elections were held
on May 12, 2009. Eighteen countries were elected, five of which will be serving on the Council
for the first time. Re-elected members include Bangladesh, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Djibouti,
Jordan, Mauritius, Mexico, Nigeria, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, and Uruguay.
The newest Council members are Belgium, Hungary, Kyrgyzstan, Norway, and the United
States.34 They began their term on June 19, 2009. (See the Appendix for a full list of Council
members broken down by region and term.)
U.S. Response
The United States has generally supported the Human Rights Council’s overall mission. Past and
current Administrations and Members of Congress, however, have disagreed as to whether the
Council is an effective or credible mechanism for addressing human rights.
Obama Administration
On March 31, 2009, the Obama Administration announced that it would run for a seat on the
Human Rights Council. The United States was elected as a Council member by the U.N. General
Assembly on May 12, 2009, receiving a total of 167 General Assembly votes. Its term began on
June 19, 2009. After the vote, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations Susan Rice
stated that the Administration was “looking forward to working from within a broad cross section
of member states to strengthen and reform the Human Rights Council.” Rice recognized the
Council as a “flawed body that has not lived up to its potential,” and emphasized that the
Administration views the five-year review of the Council’s activities in 2011 as “an important
opportunity to strengthen and reform the Council.”35
Previously, in February 2009, the Obama Administration had announced that it would participate
as an observer in the 10th regular session of the Human Rights Council (held from March 2 to 27,
2009). The Administration stated that it “furthers our interest if we are part of the conversation
and present at the Council’s proceedings.”36 At the same time, however, the it stated that the
Council’s trajectory was “disturbing,” particularly its “repeated and unbalanced” criticisms of
Israel.37

33 U.N. press release, SG/SM/11053, HRC/8, June 20, 2007.
34 For more information on the fourth election, see http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2009/ga10826.doc.htm.
35 U.S. Mission to the United Nations press release #095(09), “Remarks by Ambassador Susan E. Rice, U.S. Permanent
Representative, Regarding the Election of the U.S. to the Human Rights Council at the General Assembly Stakeout,”
May 12, 2009, available at http://www.usunnewyork.usmission.gov/press_releases/20090512_095.html.
36 Department of State press release, “U.S. Posture Toward the Durban Review Conference and Participation in the
U.N. Human Rights Council,” February 27, 2009, available at http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2009/02/119892.htm.
37 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
10

The United Nations Human Rights Council: Issues for Congress

George W. Bush Administration
The Bush Administration opposed the Human Rights Council structure agreed to in March 2006,
and consequently the United States was one of four countries to vote against the U.N. General
Assembly resolution creating the Council. The Bush Administration stated that it did not have
confidence that the new Council would be better than its predecessor, but at the same time
indicated that it would work with other member states to ensure the Council was strong and
operated as effectively and efficiently as possible.38 In April 2006, the Bush Administration
announced that it would not run for a Council seat in the first election. A State Department
spokesperson stated, “There are strong candidates in our regional group, with long records of
support for human rights, that voted in favor of the resolution creating the Council. They should
have the opportunity to run.”39
The Bush Administration was generally disappointed with the work of the Council during its first
two years. A main point of contention was the Council’s focus on Israeli human rights violations
while failing to address human rights abuses in other parts of the world. The Administration
maintained that the legitimacy of the Council would be undermined if some Council members
continue to push such “imbalanced” views.40 Citing these concerns, the Administration
announced that it would not run for a Council seat in the May 2007 elections.41 It expressed
similar concerns when it announced its decision to not run for a seat in the third Council election,
held in May 2008.
In July 2007, the Bush Administration stated that it remained committed to supporting human
rights in the multilateral system, though it was “deeply skeptical that the U.N.’s Human Rights
Council will, in the near future, play a constructive role in our efforts.”42 The Administration also
maintained that despite its concerns, it would continue to support U.S. funding of the Council.43
In April 2008, however, then-U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Zalmay
Khalilzad, stated that the United States would withhold a portion of its contributions to the 2008
U.N. regular budget equivalent to the U.S. share of the Human Rights Council budget.44

38 In a statement made after the vote, then-U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton called the U.S. position
a “matter of principle,” and said the United States could not support the resolution because it lacked “stronger
mechanisms for maintaining credible membership.” Drawn from Ambassador Bolton’s statement in the U.N.
provisional verbatim record. U.N. document, A/60/PV.72, March 15, 2006, p. 6.
39 Press Statement by Sean McCormack, Spokesman, U.S. Department of State, April 6, 2006.
40 It further stated it did not object to discussing potential Israeli human rights abuses as long as violations by other
countries were also discussed. U.S. Statement on the Third Special Session of the Human Rights Council, Tom Casey,
Deputy Spokesman, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC, November 15, 2006.
41 Press Statement by Sean McCormack, Spokesperson, U.S. Department of State, March 6, 2007.
42 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.
43 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.
44 U.S. Mission to the United Nations press release #075(08), “Statement by Zalmay Khalilzad on the Durban II
Conference and the Human Rights Council,” April 8, 2008, available at http://www.usunnewyork.usmission.gov/
press_releases/20080408_075.html.
Congressional Research Service
11

The United Nations Human Rights Council: Issues for Congress

In June 2008, a State Department spokesperson announced that the United States would engage
with the Council “only when we [the United States] believe that there are matters of deep national
interest before the Council and we feel compelled; otherwise, we are not going to.”45 According
to the official, instead of focusing on human rights situations around the world, the Council
“turned into a forum that seems to be almost solely focused on bashing Israel.” The official added
that future U.S. participation would be “ad hoc.”46 According to Bush Administration officials,
the United States continued to work with other multilateral human rights mechanisms, such as the
U.N. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the General Assembly’s Third
Committee (Social, Humanitarian, and Cultural).47
Congressional Actions
Some Members of Congress have sought to limit U.S. contributions to the Human Rights Council
because of concerns over the Council’s effectiveness.48 On March 11, 2009, Congress enacted
H.R. 1105, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2009 (P.L. 111-8), which included a provision
on Human Rights Council funding. Section 7053 of Division H, the Department of State, Foreign
Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2009, specified that “none of the funds
appropriated by this Act may be made available for a United States contribution to the United
Nations Human Rights Council.” The provision specified that it shall not apply if (1) the
Secretary of State certifies to the Committees on Appropriations that funding the Council is “in
the national interest of the United States” or (2) the United States is a member of the Human
Rights Council. Because the United States was elected as a Human Rights Council member on
May 19, 2009, the provision will likely not apply. Similar legislation was enacted in FY2008.49
In addition, in December 2009 Congress enacted the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 (P.L.
111-117), which included a reporting requirement related to the work of the Council. Section
7052 of Division F, the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Program
Appropriations Act, required the Secretary of State to report to the appropriations committees on
resolutions adopted in the U.N. Human Rights Council no later than 30 days after the date of the
enactment of the Act, and 180 days thereafter until September 2010.50
Congressional Issues
The 111th Congress will likely remain interested in the work of the Council both as a mechanism
for addressing human rights abuses and as an element of broader U.N. reform. Ultimately, future

45 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.
46 Ibid.
47 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.
48 For information on possible political and budget implications of withholding Council funds, see the “U.S. Funding of
the Council”, under the “Congressional Issues” section.
49 On December 26, 2007, Congress agreed to H.R. 2764, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161),
which included an identical provision on Human Rights Council funding.

50 Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 (P.L. 111-117, December 16, 2009).
Congressional Research Service
12

The United Nations Human Rights Council: Issues for Congress

U.S. policy toward the Council will depend on whether the United States views the Council’s
work as effective and credible.
U.S. Funding of the Council
Comprehensive U.N. reform is a pressing issue for Congress, and the Human Rights Council is a
component of this broader U.N. reform effort. As a result, there is continued congressional
interest in U.S. funding of the Council. Specifically, some Members of Congress have proposed
that the United States withhold a proportionate share of its assessed contributions, approximately
22%, from the U.N. regular budget, which is used to fund the Council. Since 1980, the United
States has withheld proportionate shares of its contributions to the U.N. regular budget for U.N.
programs and activities it has opposed. However, withholding Council funds in this manner
would be a largely symbolic policy action because assessed contributions finance the entire U.N.
regular budget and not specific parts of it.51
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).52 In April 2008, then-U.S. Permanent Representative to the
United Nations, Zalmay Khalilzad, announced that the United States would withhold a portion of
U.S. contributions to the 2008 U.N. regular budget equivalent to the U.S. share of the Human
Rights Council budget. In 2007, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that under current
law U.S. contributions to the Human Rights Council for 2008 and 2009 would be approximately
$1.5 million per year.53
Effectiveness of the Council
Since its establishment, the Council has faced considerable criticism from governments, NGOs,
and other observers who contend that it does not effectively address human rights issues. Many
contend that this apparent ineffectiveness stems from a number of political and organizational
issues.
Focus on Specific Countries/Bloc Voting
The Council’s focus on Israel during its regular and special sessions alarmed many countries and
human rights organizations. After the first elections, the Organization of the Islamic Conference
(OIC)54 held 17 seats on the Council—accounting for about one-third of the votes needed to call a

51 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.
52 Consolidated Appropriations Act 2008, (P.L. 110-161, December 26, 2007; 121 Stat. 1844).
53 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.
54 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/.
Congressional Research Service
13

The United Nations Human Rights Council: Issues for Congress

special session. Some observers believe that consequently the Council held more special sessions
on Israel than on any other country or human rights situation.
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.55 Many observers have speculated that pro-democracy
Council members are not promoting their initiatives as they have in the past because they need
support from other Council members, particularly from the Non-Aligned Movement, in
negotiations on Council structure and mechanisms.56
Alternately, some observers maintain that the Council can still change its current course and
improve. They emphasize that the Council has yet to fully implement some of the mechanisms
that differentiate it from the Commission—most notably the universal periodic review process.
Council supporters also maintain that the composition of Council membership is a significant
improvement over the composition of Commission membership. They emphasize that the most
egregious human rights abusers did not attempt to run in Council elections because of the new
criteria and process. Some supporters also point out that widely perceived human rights violators
that announced their candidacy, such as Belarus, failed to win a seat in the second election.
Proponents further highlight the Council’s recent adoption of resolutions on the human rights
situation in Sudan, Myanmar (Burma), and the Democratic Republic of the Congo as examples of
the Council’s continued improvement. Moreover, some advocates suggest that the May 2009
election of the United States to the Council could increase the Council’s credibility and enhance
its ability to effectively address human rights issues.57
The “Goldstone Report” on Human Rights in Palestine and Other
Occupied Arab Territories

On September 15, 2009, a report entitled Human Rights in Palestine and Other Occupied Arab
Territories, Report of the United Nations Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict
(also
referred to as the “Goldstone Report”) was published.58 The report, which was mandated by a
U.N. Human Rights Council resolution, concluded there is “evidence of serious violations of

55 “Human Rights Hoax,” Wall Street Journal, June 21, 2007.
56 “Dawn of a New Era? Assessment of the U.N. Human Rights Council and its Year of Reform,” U.N. Watch, May 7,
2007, p. 7.
57 Nick Amies, “Human Rights Organizations Welcome U.S. Bid for U.N. Council Seat,” Deutsche Welle, February 4,
2009.
58 See U.N. document A/HRC/12/48, September 25, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
14

The United Nations Human Rights Council: Issues for Congress

international human rights and humanitarian law” by Israel during the Gaza conflict and that
Israel committed actions amounting to war crimes, and possibly crimes against humanity. The
report also found evidence that Palestinian armed groups committed war crimes, as well as
possibly crimes against humanity, in their repeated launching of rockets and mortars into
Southern Israel.59
The Goldstone Report has generated considerable debate among the international community and
U.S. policymakers, including Members of Congress. On November 3, 2009, for example, the
House of Representatives passed a resolution calling on the President and Secretary of State to
oppose unequivocally any endorsement or further consideration of the Goldstone Report in
multilateral fora.60
The Council and Alleged U.S. Human Rights Abuses
When considering the work of the Council, Members of Congress will likely monitor its activities
related to the United States. The following sections address recent instances of the Council’s
investigations of human rights situations in the United States.
Council Report on Detainees in Guantanamo Bay
On February 16, 2006, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights released a report on the “situation
of detainees at Guantanamo Bay.”61 The report was written by five independent rapporteurs
appointed by the Chairperson of the Commission on Human Rights.62 It alleges, among other
things, that the United States violated the human rights of detainees held at the Guantanamo Bay
Detention Center in Cuba, and that consequently the facility should be closed. According to the
report, the United States is responsible for the alleged “force-feeding of detainees on hunger
strike,” and using “excessive violence” when transporting detainees. The report also alleges that
detainees are denied the right to “challenge the legality of their detention before a judicial body,”
which violates the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment
or Punishment.63 It requests that the five U.N. rapporteurs be granted full and unlimited access to
the facility, and allowed private interviews with detainees. When researching the report, the
rapporteurs collected their information from interviews with former detainees, reports from non-
governmental organizations (NGOs), media reports, and a questionnaire answered by the United
States. The rapporteurs were not permitted to visit the detention facility in Guantanamo Bay.

59 For the Human Rights Council resolution mandating the report, see U.N. document, A/HRC/S-9/L.1, January 12,
2009. United Nations Press Release, “UN Fact Finding Mission finds strong evidence of war crimes and crimes against
humanity committed during the Gaza conflict; calls for end to impunity,” September 15, 2009. More information on the
Goldstone Report is available at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/specialsession/9/
FactFindingMission.htm.
60 H.Res. 867 [111th], introduced on October 23, 2009, by Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen.
61 U.N. document, E/CN.4/2006/120, February 15, 2006.
62 The special rapporteurs include Leila Zerrougui, Chairperson rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary
Detention; Leandro Despouy, rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers; Manfred Nowak, the rapporteur
on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment; Asthma Jahangir, the rapporteur on freedom of religion or
belief; and Paul Hunt, the rapporteur on the right to physical and mental health.
63 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.
Congressional Research Service
15

The United Nations Human Rights Council: Issues for Congress

In its rebuttal to the report, the Bush Administration wrote that it was “engaged in a continuing
armed conflict against Al Qaida, and that the law of war applies to the conduct of that war and
related detention operations.”64 The Administration maintained that detainees at Guantanamo Bay
were treated “humanely,” and that potential human rights violations were thoroughly investigated
by the U.S. government.65 On July 7, 2006, the U.N. special rapporteurs, acting in their new
capacity as Council experts, renewed their call for the closing of the Guantanamo Detention
Center. They encouraged the United States to develop a timeline for closing the facility, and urged
U.N. member states, the International Committee for the Red Cross (ICRC), and other relevant
agencies and organizations to “collaborate actively, constructively, and urgently with the United
States,” to ensure the closure of the detention center.66
Inquiry of the Council’s Special Rapporteur on Human Rights while
Countering Terrorism

In October 2006, the Council’s Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms while Countering Terrorism, Martin Scheinin of Finland,
wrote a letter of inquiry to the United States regarding its counter-terrorism practices.67 In
December 2006, the Administration invited Scheinin to visit the United States to discuss his
concerns.68 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.”69
Scheinin visited the United States from May 16 to 25, 2007.70 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.71 Scheinin emphasized, however, that he did not consider the
U.S. fight against terrorism to be a “war”—though he recognized that the United States views

64 U.N. document, E/CN.4/2006/120, Annex II, p. 53-54, February 15, 2006.
65 Press Briefing by Scott McClellan, Spokesman, The White House, February 16, 2006.
66 U.N. Press Release, “U.N. Rights Experts Ask International Community to Aid with Expeditious Closure of
Guantanamo Detention Centre,” July 6, 2006.
67 In the inquiry letter, Scheinin expressed concern that the U.S. Military Commission Act may violate U.S. obligations
under international human rights law.
68 U.N. Press Release, “United States Accepts Visit Request of U.N. Expert on Human Rights and Counter-terrorism,”
January 16, 2007.
69 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.
70 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
71 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.
Congressional Research Service
16

The United Nations Human Rights Council: Issues for Congress

itself as “engaged in an armed conflict with Al Qaeda and the Taliban.”72 He also stated that the
United States violated international law by detaining prisoners in Guantanamo Bay for several
years without charges, thereby “undermining the right of fair trial.”73 In addition, he highlighted
reports from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) that noted the use of enhanced interrogation
techniques by the United States. These activities, according to Scheinin, violated international
law, particularly the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.74 He also noted with
regret that laws such as the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, and
the Military Commissions Act of 2006 eliminated important legal mechanisms that protect
individual rights.
Then-U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Zalmay Khalilzad disagreed with Scheinin’s
findings, stating, “We have a different point of view.”75 Khalilzad emphasized that the United
States followed U.S. laws, procedures, and decision-making authorities. He stated, “We are a rule
of law country and our decisions are based on rule of law.”76
Inquiry of the Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants
The Council’s Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants, Jorge Bustamante, traveled
to the United States from April 30 to May 17, 2007.77 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 highlighted (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.78
In addition, Bustamante recommended that the United States work to ensure that its domestic
laws and immigration activities are “consistent with its international obligations to protect the
rights of migrant workers,” especially in the context of international agreements such as the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. He also stated that the United States
“overly-relies” on local law enforcement for its immigration activities, which could potentially

72 Ibid.
73 Ibid. Scheinin also stated that U.S. labeling of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay as enemy combatants is a “description
of convenience, without legal effect” since it is not a category under international law, where individuals are described
as either “combatants” or “civilians.”
74 The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights entered into force on March 23, 1976. It was signed by the
United States on October 5, 1977, and was ratified on behalf of the United States on September 8, 1992. As of April 19,
2007, 160 countries were party to the Covenant. The text of the Covenant is available at http://www.unhchr.ch/html/
menu3/b/a_ccpr.htm.
75 Evelyn Leopold, “U.N. Expert Faults U.S. on Human Rights in Terror Laws,” The Washington Post, May 26, 2007.
76 Ibid.
77 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/.
78 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.
Congressional Research Service
17

The United Nations Human Rights Council: Issues for Congress

impact the federal government’s ability to effectively address migrant issues and ensure
compliance with international law.79

79 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
18

The United Nations Human Rights Council: Issues for Congress

Appendix. Human Rights Council Membership
Table A-1. Human Rights Council Membership, by Regional Group

Latin
American
Eastern
Western
European
African
Asian States
and Caribbean
European
and Other States
States (13)
(13)
States (8)
States (6)
(7)
Angola (2010) Bangladesh
Argentina
(2011)
Bosnia
&
Belgium
(2012)
(2012)
Herzegovina
Cameroon
Bolivia (2010)
(2010)
France (2011)
(2012)
Bahrain (2011)
Brazil (2011)
Hungary (2012)
Italy (2010)
Burkina Faso
China (2012)
(2011)
Chile (2011)
Slovakia (2011)
Netherlands (2010)
India (2010)
Djibouti
Cuba (2012)
Russian
Norway (2012)
(2012)
Indonesia
Federation (2012)
(2010)
Mexico (2012)
United Kingdom
Egypt (2010)
Slovenia (2010)
(2011)
Japan (2011)
Nicaragua (2010)
Gabon (2011)
Ukraine (2011)
United States (2012)
Jordan (2012)
Uruguay (2012)
Ghana (2011)
Kyrgyzstan
Madagascar
(2012)
(2010)
Pakistan
Mauritius
(2011)
(2012)
Philippines
Nigeria (2012)
(2010)
Senegal
Qatar (2010)
(2012)
Republic of
South Africa
Korea (2011)
(2010)
Saudi Arabia
Zambia
(2012)
(2011)
Source: U.N. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
Notes: Council membership is staggered by year. All Council members are eligible for reelection for a full
second term. Dates represent year of term end.

Author Contact Information

Luisa Blanchfield

Specialist in International Relations
lblanchfield@crs.loc.gov, 7-0856


Congressional Research Service
19