At today’s session of the Human Rights Council, UN Watch took the floor to confront UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese over her latest report on torture—exposing glaring omissions, factual distortions, and a pattern of conduct that has drawn condemnation from leading democracies around the world. The report was also refuted in detail by UN Watch.
UN Watch Testimony Delivered by Hillel Neuer before the U.N. Human Rights Council, Agenda Item 7 Interactive Dialogue with Speciual Rapporteur Francesca Albanese, March 24, 2026
Ms. Albanese, in your report on torture, why is there not one single mention of Hamas’ horrific torture of Israeli hostages?
You’ve said: “It’s not in my mandate.” But on March 4th, you signed a UN statement condemning US and Israeli strikes in Iran.
Are you mandated to speak on events a thousand miles away from your focus area, and not to say one word on the atrocities committed by Hamas on October 7th, and for two years after in their Gaza tunnels?
And when you choose to speak on Iran, why is it only to defend the regime—after you refused to say a single word for the thousands of protesters they massacred?
One year ago, the Council President announced that he spoke to you about your conduct, and that you acknowledged his considerations.
However, on September 15, you said “380,000 children under five” were killed in Gaza. Are you aware, this is more than the entire population of children under five in Gaza?
On October 22, you reposted this statement: “Israel is the incarnation of evil.”
Yes or no, is this still your position?
On January 6, you reposted this: “Israel is pure evil in a way the world has never seen before.” Yes or no, is this still your position?
Canada and Germany condemned you for antisemitism and Holocaust inversion. The French Prime Minister has called for your resignation. The UK has called for an investigation. Italy, Netherlands, Argentina and others condemned your conduct. When so many democracies speak with one voice, the problem is not them—it’s you.
(Albanese did not respond.)
____________________
After Albanese’s report was endorsed by Iran, Cuba, and others tyrannies, UN Watch’s Hillel Neuer took the floor again to respond. The PLO ambassador kept banging on the table to interrupt him. The Chair gave him the floor when he concluded—see below.
UN Watch Testimony Delivered by Hillel Neuer before the U.N. Human Rights Council, Agenda Item 7 General Debate, March 24, 2026
Mr. Chair,
Everything we just heard from the world’s worst abusers of human rights is absolutely false.
Now, we have before us a report that claims to apply international law. In reality, Ms. Albanese’s report abandons it.
From the very first page, her conclusion is already written: Israel is accused of genocide, and everything that follows is constructed to support that claim.
This is not legal analysis. It is advocacy.
Her report radically redefines torture — no longer as the specific, intentional abuse of a detainee, but as virtually everything: war, displacement, fear, even the existence of conflict itself.
If everything is torture, then nothing is.
She goes further, collapsing the distinction between torture and genocide, inventing a theory that has no grounding in international law and jurisprudence.
At the same time, she omits the most basic context:
Why is there is no accounting of the October 7 massacre?
Why no accounting of Hamas embedding its forces among civilians?
Why no accounting of hostages held underground and tortured?
Mr. Chair, Israel is mentioned 173 times. Hamas? Not even once.
Instead, we are given a narrative built largely on unverified submissions, partisan sources, and selective quotations — elevated into sweeping legal conclusions.
Distinguished Delegates,
International law demands rigor. It demands objectivity. It demands that we test claims against evidence — not the other way around.
Ms. Albanese’s report does the opposite.
It stretches definitions, ignores context, and reaches conclusions first.
And in doing so, it does not strengthen human rights.
It undermines them.
I urge this Council to reject this report. Thank you.
(The Chair then gave the floor to the PLO ambassador, who had been repeatedly banging on his desk. He objected that UN Watch referenced Albanese’s report after the special debate on that had already concluded. But this was an absurd objection because this was the Item 7 General Debate, which includes everything, including her report. The Spanish ambassador chairing the debate, VP of the UNHRC, failed to recognize this, and instead indicated his agreement with the PLO.)
