Left Speech-less: UN Watch Receives 0 speaking slots at the 50th session

At the 50th session, UN Watch received treatment worse than ever before. Having applied to speak for all 36 interactive dialogues, the NGO received zero speaking slots. By contrast, in this same 50th Session, NGOs perceivably more “friendly” with Mr. Tistounet were allowed to speak. The International Commission of Jurists and the International Service for Human Rights each received eight slots, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch each received nine, and CIVICUS received 10. In response to this blatant manipulation, UN Watch’s legal advisor, Dina Rovner, wrote a letter to High Commissioner Michelle Bachelet. see above

Emma Reilly’s Witness Testimony on Manipulation of Speakers Lists at the 50th Session

UN Watch approached me shortly after the 50th session of the Human Rights Council to verify the correctness of the establishment of lists of speakers for the 50th session at which, despite signing up for all interactive dialogues, UN Watch did not receive a single speaking slot. 

The algorithm adopted following the consultations with Geneva-based NGOs varies according to type of debate at the Human Rights Council. For interactive dialogues and panel discussions, where spots are limited, NGOs are invited to give an order of priority to ensure that a maximum number of NGOs may speak on their priority issues. All NGOs identifying the debate as their first choice speak in order of sign-up, then all NGOs identifying the debate as second choice in order of sign-up, etc. For adoption of UPR outcomes, there was consensus among the NGOs during consultations that they did not want the priority system to apply, so it is in strict order of sign-up. As every NGO that signs up may speak during general debates, those are also in order of sign-up. This algorithm has at no point been changed since I developed it with the IT department in 2013. 

For the 50th session of the Human Rights Council, there were no general debates. The only lists of speakers that (should) reflect pure order of sign-up for that session are therefore those relating to UPR, where UN Watch did speak on occasion. 

The UPR lists are internally consistent, with no changes whatsoever to the order of NGOs across different countries. This indicates that the algorithm was used to generate these lists without manipulation. The lists for Iceland, Moldova and Haiti clearly show that UN Watch signed up after Amnesty International, but before Ingénieurs du Monde. 

The list for the interactive dialogue with the Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territories has very obviously been manipulated. UN Watch have provided me with their signup confirmation sheet showing that this was their first choice of debate. The algorithm would place all NGOs electing that debate as their first choice of interactive dialogue in order of signup. If Amnesty International and Ingénieurs du Monde both also elected it as their first choice of debate, the order in which the NGOs appeared on UPR lists would be preserved, i.e. UN Watch would appear on the list of speakers before Ingénieurs du Monde, and after Amnesty International. On the published list, Ingénieurs du Monde appear in the ninth slot, but UN Watch is absent. This result is impossible, and comparison with the UPR lists makes it obvious that UN Watch has been deleted. The manipulation of the list is further confirmed by the fact that Amnesty International, which always appeared directly before UN Watch on the UPR lists, and therefore also before Ingénieurs du Monde, appears in the last slot. I can only speculate that Mr. Tistounet remembered my advice from 2013 that UN Watch would remember its relative position on lists vis-à-vis the large, international NGOs and detect his manipulation. Placing Amnesty International in the final slot would allow OHCHR staff to claim that UN Watch unfortunately just missed out by not signing up quickly enough, when the reality is clear that their name was deleted. 

I have made a number of formal reports and requests for investigation of the above acts of misconduct. The UN in all cases declined to investigate.

UN Watch Letter to High Commissioner Michelle Bachelet