This morning’s organizational meeting for the 11th session of the U.N. Human Rights Council began with a presentation of the session’s draft agenda by the council’s president, Nigerian Ambassador Martin Uhomoibhi. He noted that the session will begin the afternoon of June 2 and will include panel discussions on the topics of women’s human rights and climate change.
Controversy over potential Sri Lanka panel
But controversy erupted when the president discussed the need to “creatively use panel discussions,” widely perceived as a means to address the urgent human rights situations not on the council’s agenda, specifically, the situation in Sri Lanka. (It is still uncertain whether or not the required 16 signatures have been reached to call for a special session on that issue). He said that further specific details on the panel will be provided at a later date.
Egypt, speaking for the African Group, was the first to voice its concern about these actions of the President and the bureau, saying they are overstepping their mandate – which is supposed to be purely procedural – by trying to address human rights issues, saying they are setting a “dangerous precedent.”
Pakistan, speaking for the Islamic Group (OIC), and Sri Lanka backed these claims. Sri Lanka added that allowing such a panel would give the bureau a “blank check” and explained that, according to the council’s Institution Building Package, the president does not have the mandate to call for consultations on country situations.
The president responded, “We are not subverts,” suggesting that he and the members of the bureau are not seeking to subvert the Human Rights Council.
When the president tried to declare the meeting closed, Egypt took the floor to point out that the program of work has not been adopted, and to reiterate that, in its view, only the council can call for panel discussions. The president said the program of work is supposed to be adopted June 2, the first day of the session. Mexico was the only one to take to the floor in support of the president, saying, “Thank you for you efforts…you have our full support.”
Cuba attacks OHCHR independence
Cuba took the floor to make a few complaints: The U.N.’s failure to translate Cuba’s UPR report into Spanish, the use of rotation of special procedures mandate holders and their lack of geographical representation, that a number of the proposed mandate holders “come from a single region” i.e. the Western Group (which purportedly also controls the OHCHR), and the failure of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) to organize workshops as stipulated in the resolution on the “Rights of People to Peace.” Regarding the latter point, Cuba said there needs to be more discussion on the links between the OHCHR and the Human Rights Council, another clear attempt on its part to undermine OHCHR independence.
Pakistan, the Islamic Group, condemns Israel
Regarding the follow-up to the special session on the “Occupied Palestinian Territories,” Pakistan, speaking for the OIC, stressed its concern that Israel has not implemented the council’s resolutions and said there needs to be an “objective assessment of the situation on the ground.”
EU stresses need for non-selective UPR
The Czech Republic, speaking for the European Union (EU), voiced its concern that the working group for the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) was not able to accommodate all those who would like to participate, saying this jeopardized the “universality and non-selectivity” of the process.
Amnesty condemns one-sided mandate on Israel/Palestine
Amnesty International called for an RRI (review, rationalization, and implementation) process for the mandate on the “Occupied Palestinian Territories,” which has not been carried out since it was created (unlike every other mandate). It argued the mandate could thus be made more even-handed by addressing violations of all parties (not just those of Israel), gaining enhanced credibility.
