UN Watch legal memo disputes Albanese’s UN status amid US sanctions dispute

ROME, Sept. 18, 2025 – A Geneva-based watchdog said Thursday it has filed a legal memorandum to the United Nations arguing that the reappointment of Francesca Albanese, the UN’s special rapporteur on the Palestinian territories, was carried out in violation of UN rules and is therefore invalid.

In a 20-page submission to UN Legal Counsel Stephen Mathias, UN Watch contends that the president of the Human Rights Council acted improperly by failing to transmit objections from states and NGOs, as required under council procedures. Instead, the objections were referred to a coordination committee, comprised of Albanese’s friends and peers, that the group says lacked the authority to decide on reappointments.

UN Watch executive director Hillel Neuer presented the findings today at a hearing of the Italian Senate in Rome.

“The UN’s own rules are clear: the Council must consider objections to mandate-holders. That never happened,” Neuer said. “The process was hijacked, and the so-called renewal of Ms. Albanese’s mandate is legally void.”

Neuer added that Albanese, who has been accused of spreading antisemitism and minimizing Hamas atrocities, “cannot hide behind diplomatic immunity she no longer has.”

The memorandum calls on the UN Legal Counsel to recognize the illegality of her appointment process, and urges member states to reject what it describes as Albanese’s unlawful claim to office.

The issue has gained urgency after UN Legal Counsel Mathias recently wrote to Washington to protest U.S. sanctions on Albanese, insisting she enjoyed UN immunity.

UN Watch says its new filing proves the opposite, and calls on the UN to recognize the illegality of her purported reappointment, and for member states to reject what it describes as Albanese’s unlawful claim to office.

In addition, Albanese has been sued in US federal court for defamation, and UN Watch’s memo will likely figure in the court’s deliberations.

____________________________________

UN WATCH MEMORANDUM

TO:                 Stephen D. Mathias, United Nations Legal Counsel

FROM:          Hillel C. Neuer, UN Watch Executive Director,

SUBJECT:    Defective Reappointment of Francesca Albanese and Her Loss of Immunity

DATE:            9/18/25

This memorandum of law is a response to the findings of the Coordination Committee of the United Nations Human Rights Council Special Procedures, in its letter dated 31 May 2025, which summarily dismissed all allegations of persistent non-compliance of the Code of Conduct by Francesca Albanese.

These grave allegations had been submitted to the Council President in official objections to her reappointment made by multiple stakeholders, including by the Permanent Representatives of Israel, Argentina and Hungary, by members of the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee and the European Parliament, and by United Nations Watch.

In a cursory and dismissive fashion, the Coordination Committee completely rejected all the complaints against Albanese, determined that “the Committee does not find any instances of non-compliance of the Code of Conduct,” and that there was “no case to invoke 8/PRST/2 against the Special Rapporteur.”

This memo analyzes the Coordination Committee conclusions, and shows why they are unfounded in both fact and law. Since the purported re-appointment of Albanese was carried out illegally in violation of 8/PRST/2, it is null and avoid. Therefore, Albanese no longer benefits from any privileges or immunities.

A. Failure to Comply with 8/PRST/2 Renders Albanese’s Renewal Null and Void

1. 8/PRST/2 Requires Direct Action by the President of the Council

We reject the notion that the Coordination Committee was the appropriate body to review and assess the objections by stakeholders to Albanese’s reappointment.

The sole legal authority on how to handle objections to re-appointment of a Special Procedure mandate-holder is found in 8/PRST/2, titled Terms of Office of special procedure mandate-holders.[1] It obligates the President of the Human Rights Council to “convey to the Council” the following:

Any information brought to his or her attention, including that by States and/or by the coordination committee of special procedures, concerning cases of persistent non-compliance by a mandate-holder with the provisions of Council resolution 5/2, especially prior to the renewal of mandate-holders in office.

The word “including” means that if stakeholders other than States or the Coordination Committee, e.g., NGOs like United Nations Watch, submit information, the President must “convey” it to the Council. The “and/or” means that whatever stakeholder submits information to the President, whether an NGO, a lawmaker, a State, or the Coordination Committee, the President is required to “convey” that information to the Council.

This text is not an obscure guideline, but rather has been described by international law experts as one of the Council’s core “institution building texts.” Yet, in contravention of the clear and unambiguous language of 8/PRST/2, the Council President refused to convey any of the multiple stakeholder objections to the Council.

Instead of respecting this solemn obligation, the President chose to circumvent the Council entirely. As evidenced in the minutes of the 1 April 2025 Bureau meeting, the President and other members of the Bureau decided that, rather than transmit the complaints and supporting documentation to the Council as required, the President would instead divert them to the Coordination Committee—a body with no mandate to replace the Council’s specific role in addressing misconduct or deciding reappointments.

Even the Internal Advisory Procedure—an internal procedure created by the Coordination Committee itself, which gives it extremely limited authority to review complaints received during a mandate-holder’s term, but not in connection with renewal—does not authorize the Committee to take any concrete action against a mandate-holder who has violated the Code of Conduct. The most it authorizes the Committee to do is to provide guidance to the mandate-holder and submit its findings to the President of the Council. In any event, the procedure for handling objections to the renewal of mandate-holders is clearly governed by 8/PRST/2 — and not the Internal Advisory Procedure. This is recognized by other stakeholders, including Amnesty International and the International Commission of Jurists.

Accordingly, it was not for the Coordination Committee to decide whether to invoke 8/PRST/2 against Albanese as that rule had already been invoked by other stakeholders. Once the rule is invoked, the President is obligated to convey the information to the Council and the Council must “consider” the information and “act upon it as appropriate.” Therefore, the Coordination Committee’s findings of no violations did not absolve the President of his duty pursuant to 8/PRST/2 to convey the objections he received from Member States, UN Watch, and others to the Council, nor did it justify his failure to do so in a timely manner.

2. The Coordination Committee was not Qualified to Address the Objections

The Coordination Committee is not a neutral, independent body, but is composed of Ms. Albanese’s peers with whom she has personally collaborated on many joint statements and other official activities.[2]  Indeed, before any of the complaints against Ms. Albanese were referred to the Coordination Committee, the Committee and its individual members had already pronounced themselves on the matter.

• In a December 4, 2023 letter signed by Isha Dyfan as Chair, the Coordination Committee complained to the Human Rights Council President about “attacks” on mandate holders. The letter referred to UN Watch’s evidence-based allegations against Albanese as “baseless accusations” about her “integrity and motivations,” which was “deeply regrettable.”
• On March 31, 2024, Coordination Committee member Tlaleng Mofokeng, who regularly collaborates with and supports Albanese, expressly advocated for Albanese in a tweet. She called on the Secretary General and the High Commissioner for Human Rights to “deal with” the “attempts to intimidate and threaten Francesca and other UN experts doing their duties,” alleging that this “seriously undermines our collective efforts.”
• On May 16, 2024, the Coordination Committee—including Surya Deva, the two panel chair who signed the 31 May 2025 letter and co-signed the earlier 28 March 2025 letter, both exonerating Albanese, as well as Tlaleng Mofokeng—issued a press release defending Albanese and others from “severe targeting in social media” and “baseless accusations” that question her and other officials’ “integrity and motivations.”

In reviewing objections to Albanese’s re-appointment, the Coordination Committee operated in the role of an international fact-finder. The minimal rules of due process require that fact-finders in the human rights field be impartial. According to Professor Thomas M. Franck, the late NYU scholar and former president of the American Society of International Law, this requirement implies that “the persons conducting an investigation should be, and should be seen to be, free of commitment to a preconceived outcome.” [3]

This is supported by UN documents. For example, The Declaration on Fact-finding by the UN in the Field of the Maintenance of International Peace and Security (“Declaration on Fact-Finding”) lists impartiality is twice listed as a requirement for fact-finders. Likewise, the OHCHR Guidance and Practice for COIs states in its section on “Qualifications,” that COI members—who are in a similar role to that of the Coordination Committee here—should “have a proven record of independence and impartiality” and that “prior public statements” could impact their “independence and impartiality,” or “create perceptions of bias.”

The requirement of impartiality is violated not only where a judge is actually biased, but also where there is an appearance of bias. The authoritative exposition of this rule comes from the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY). In the case of Prosecutor v. Anto Furundzija, the Appeals Chamber found that, “as a general rule, courts will find that a Justice ‘might not bring an impartial and unprejudiced mind’ to a case if there is proof of actual bias or of an appearance of bias.”

This rule does not exist only in theory. Where actual or apprehended bias has been found, international tribunals will apply the remedy of disqualification, as happened in the Sesay case before The Appeals Chamber of the Special Court of Sierra Leone in 2004. National legal systems equally apply the remedy of recusal in cases of real or apprehended bias, as surveyed by the ICTY Appeals Chamber in Furundzija. For example, U.S. federal law provides that “Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that what matters here “is not the reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance,” and that a judge should recuse him or herself when it would appear to a reasonable person, knowing all the relevant facts, that a judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 548 (1994).

Accordingly, public pronouncements of the type made by the Coordination Committee and its members would be grounds for recusal by any respectable adjudicator in a law-abiding jurisdiction. Yet the members of the Coordination Committee have wrongly refused to recuse themselves. Likewise, the President of the Council should not have knowingly assigned the investigation of complaints on Ms. Albanese’s abuses to a Committee so obviously tainted by actual bias, not to mention the appearance thereof.

3. Request to the Coordination Committee was Untimely

Separate and apart from the Coordination Committee’s lack of competence to address Albanese’s alleged Code of Conduct violations, the timing of the President’s correspondence with the Coordination Committee suggests that his priority was to create a paper trail to justify his failure to comply with 8/PRST/2 rather than to get an independent assessment of the complaints. Indeed, he only forwarded the objections to the Coordination Committee on 7 April 2025, after the March Council session had ended and Ms. Albanese was already purportedly reappointed. Accordingly, his request to the Coordination Committee was untimely, rendering the entire exercise moot.

B. Albanese Fails to Meet the Standards of Independence, Objectivity, Impartiality and Integrity Required of Special Procedures Mandate-Holders

In its 31 May 2025 letter, the Coordination Committee completely absolved Albanese of any violations with regard to the high standards expected of special procedures—“impartiality, objectivity and integrity.”

The Committee said it had previously reviewed “various” social media posts and “found no breach of the Code” and cited Albanese’s own statement that she would “continue to adhere to the principles of impartiality, objectivity and integrity outlined in the Code.”

Albanese is a compulsive tweeter with over a hundred tweets per month. Therefore, claiming that the Committee reviewed “various” social media posts without identifying any specific posts and then stating that it found “no breach” indicates a dismissive approach to the complaints.

Moreover, relying on Albanese’s own words that she will “continue to” abide by the principles of “impartiality, objectivity and integrity” makes a mockery of the whole process. Even a cursory review of her X account establishes that Albanese has never adhered and continues not to adhere to those principles.

For example:

• In the month of May 2025 alone, Albanese pressured media to hide that the Hamas-run health ministry is the source of their casualty data, promoted an unverified Hamas-libel that Israel was using dogs to torture and rape Palestinian prisoners, and embraced the false claim that “Zionists are staging antisemitic incidents.”
• Although she has never taken the bar exam and has no license to practice law, Albanese has repeatedly misrepresented herself as a “lawyer,” including on her application for the role of UN Special Rapporteur, on her official UN profile, and on her X bio.
• Albanese misled the public that funding for her November 2023 Australia trip came from the UN, when even the Coordination Committee confirmed in its 28 March 2025 letter to you that there was “partial external funding” for her “internal trips within Australia and New Zealand.”

C. Albanese is Guilty of Both Antisemitism and Disinformation; The Claim That The Complaints Contained Disinformation About Albanese is Baseless

The Coordination Committee also absolved Albanese of any violations with regard to (1) antisemitism and hate speech; and (2) disinformation against Israel.

1. Albanese’s Antisemitism

Referring to its 28 March 2025 letter in which the Committee absurdly took Albanese at her word that she is not antisemitic, the Committee claimed to have “already dealt with allegations of antisemitism and hate speech” and suggested that Albanese’s views are limited to “the extent to which conduct of Israel abides by international law and international human rights law.” The Committee added that “legitimate criticisms of the Government of Israel’s policies and actions should not be equated with antisemitism.”

UN Watch agrees that legitimate criticisms of the Israeli government are not antisemitic. This is also consistent with the IHRA definition of antisemitism, which states that “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.” The IHRA definition, however, adds examples of antisemitism that are not considered legitimate criticism of the Israeli government, including: making demonizing or stereotypical allegations about the power of Jews as collective, denying the Nazi atrocities, denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor, applying double-standards to Israel, and comparing Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

A quick search of Albanese’s social media reveals that she engages in all of these recognized manifestations of antisemitism. For example:

• Power of Jews as a collective: In July 2014, Albanese fundraised for her former employer UNRWA by postingthat America is “subjugated by the Jewish lobby.” She recently doubled down on this statement in a May 2025 interview with Al Jazeera.
• Power of Jews as a collective: In July 2014, Albanese posteda message addressed to the BBC that “the Israeli lobby is clearly inside your veins” and spoke of an Orwellian nightmare caused “once again by Israel’s greed.”
• Atrocity denial: On October 7th, 2023, as the Hamas massacre was still unfolding, Albanese minimized the atrocities by posting: “Today’s violence must be put in context.”
• Atrocity denial: Albanese denied that the October 7 Hamas massacre was the worst antisemitic attack on Jews since the Holocaust, instead justifying it as a “reaction to Israel’s oppression.”
• Atrocity denial: Albanese questioned whether six Israeli hostages shot in the head by Hamas in a Rafah tunnel were “executed or killed,” implicitly lending support to the false rumor propagated by Hamas supporters that IDF soldiers themselves had killed the hostages in a bombing.
• Holocaust Distortion: In July 2024, Albanese endorsed comparingthe Prime Minister of Israel to Adolf Hitler.
• Holocaust Distortion: In August 2024, Albanese compared contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis by referringto Gaza as “the largest and most shameful concentration camp of the 21st century.”
• Holocaust Distortion: In October 2024, Albanese comparedIsrael with the “Third Reich” and its “pure race” laws.
• Israel is a racist endeavor: In June 2024, Albanese posted that “Israel has been an apartheid state toward the Palestinians ‘ab initio,’” effectively denying Israel’s legitimacy and the Jewish right to self-determination in Israel from the beginning.
• Israel is racist endeavor: In September 2024, again rejecting Israel’s legitimacy dating back to 1948, Albanese posted on X that “even stones of the UN building in NY know that Israel is an apartheid state” that must “offer an apology and reparation to millions of Nakba survivors and all those it has tormented and persecuted for decades.”
• Demonization: In June 2025, Albanese told El Pais that “Israel commits crimes like it breathes.”
• Demonization: In a December 2024 post, Albanese called Israel the “depravity of the century.”
• Double standards: Albanese condemned Israel’s June 2024 rescue of four hostages as “The #Nuseirat massacre,” while ignoring Hamas culpability for taking the hostages, holding them in civilian homes, and attempting to prevent the rescue by shooting at the soldiers carrying it out, endangering Palestinian civilians in the vicinity.
• Double standards: Albanese routinely calls for arms embargos on Israel but completely ignores Iran’s role in supplying Hamas with weapons and military training.

As detailed in A/HRC/59/NGO/331, Albanese is the first human rights expert in UN history to ever be condemned for antisemitism and/or Holocaust distortion by the governments of France, Germany, Canada, and the United States, including by two antisemitism envoys. She has been condemned not only by governments, but also by lawmakers, leading Jewish groups that combat antisemitism, and other civil society organizations. Below is a small selection of these condemnations. The full list is available on the UN Watch website.

• The U.S. Government(April 3, 2025): “We condemn [Ms. Albanese’s] virulent antisemitism, which demonizes Israel and supports Hamas. She has clearly violated the UN’s code of conduct and is unfit for her role. Her reappointment would show the @UN tolerates antisemitic hatred and support for terrorism.”
• S. Ambassador to the UN Linda Thomas-Greenfield(July 26, 2024): “There is no place for antisemitism from UN-affiliated officials tasked with promoting human rights. While the United States has never supported Francesca Albanese’s mandate, it is clear she is not fit for this or any position at the UN.”
• S. Special Envoy on Antisemitism Deborah Lipstadt(December 14, 2022): “Such blatant antisemitic rhetoric–particularly when it’s an established pattern–is simply unacceptable. It severely undermines the credibility of the UN Human Rights Special Rapporteur to deal with the issue of human rights in the context of Israel & the Palestinian territories”
• Canada’s Special Envoy on Combating Antisemitism Deborah Lyons(October 30, 2024): “As a former UN official, as the Special Envoy for Preserving Holocaust Remembrance and Combatting Antisemitism, and as a Canadian, I am horrified to see a United Nations Special Rapporteur, Francesca Albanese, engage in Holocaust distortion and inversion.”
• Canada’s Permanent Mission to the UN in Geneva(October 24, 2024): “The recent remarks by Francesca Albanese are unacceptable and incompatible with her duty of impartiality, probity and good faith as an independent Special Rapporteur. Antisemitism has no place anywhere.”
• French Foreign Ministry(February 11, 2024): “The October 7 massacre is the largest anti-Semitic massacre of the 21st century. Disputing it is a mistake. Seeming to justify it, by including the name of the United Nations, is a shame. These comments [by Francesca Albanese] are all the more scandalous since the fight against anti-Semitism and all forms of racism are at the heart of the founding of the UN.”
• German Foreign Ministry(February 11, 2024): “Full support to @francediplo. To justify the horrific terror attacks of 7/10 & deny their antisemitic nature is appalling. Making such statements in a UN capacity is a disgrace and goes against everything the United Nations stand for.”
• German Parliament Member Frank Müller-Rosentritt(June 9, 2024): “A disgusting commentary on the successful release of the hostages. Francesca Albanese must finally be removed from her position as UN Special Reporter! Germany must not support this blatant one-sidedness, demonization and delegitimization of Israel.”
• Anti-Defamation League(March 28, 2025): “ADL has documented numerous instances where Ms. Albanese has made inflammatory and antisemitic statements, undermining the principles of impartiality and integrity required of her role as set out by UNHRC resolution 5/2.”
• American Jewish Committee(March 31, 2025): “The continued appointment of Ms. Albanese sends a deeply troubling signal to Jewish communities worldwide, to the victims of antisemitic violence, and to all states and civil society actors who believe in a multilateralism rooted in integrity and universality.”

Astonishingly, the Coordination Committee completely ignored these condemnations. This confirms that its review was not serious.

2. Albanese’s Disinformation and Incitement

The Coordination Committee added “we also find no evidence of disinformation disseminated by Ms. Albanese,” claiming she bases her comments on “information corroborated by UN bodies, verified news reports and information from reputable sources on the ground.” Yet the reality is the opposite. Albanese has a long record of disinformation with her modus operandi being to promote reckless and inflammatory statements without any attempt to verify accuracy—the converse of the integrity required of special rapporteurs.

Below are just some of the many examples from Albanese’s social media:

• Albanese spread a conspiracy theory blaming the CIA and the Mossad for the 2015 Paris terrorist attack by ISIS that massacred Charlie Hebdo journalists. (January 11, 2015).
• Albanese blamed Israel for the LA fires. (January 12, 2025).
• Albanes cited widely debunked Lancet article to falsely claim that in first nine months of war, Israel killed 186,000 Palestinians. (July 8, 2024).
• Albanese accused Israel of using dogs to “torture” and “rape” Palestinians citing no sources. (May 10, 2025).
• Well after it was established that a misfired Palestinian Islamic Jihad rocket hit the parking lot of Gaza’s al-Ahli Hospital on October 17, Albanese continued to promote the false narrative that this was an “atrocity” caused by an Israeli “strike.” (October 19, 2023).
• Albanese claimed that Hitler’s ideology remains “in the DNA of the Western system.” (June 23, 2025).
• Albanese pressured the media to hide the fact that a Hamas-run entity supplies their casualty statistics on Gaza. (May 3, 2025).
• Albanese embraced the ridiculous claim that “Zionists are staging antisemitic incidents.” (May 30, 2025).
• Albanese defended the failed “Flotilla,” absurdly accusing Israel of an “act of aggression” against the United Kingdom. (June 9, 2025).
• Albanese condemned Israel’s June 2024 hostage-rescue, claiming it reflected Israel’s “genocidal intent.” (June 8, 2024).
• Albanese completely exaggerated the casualties without citing any sources in an interview published in El Pais when she said “[In Gaza] there are 400,000 people who have disappeared.” (June 27, 2025).

3. Accusing the Complainants of Disinformation Against Albanese is a Wrongful Attempt to Disparage the Complainants

While the Committee exonerated Albanese of spreading disinformation without conducting a serious review of her statements, it found that “some of the allegation letters sent to the President” contained “disinformation” against her, specifically claims that Albanese “did not condemn the 7 October 2023 heinous attacks, or that she rejects Israel’s right to exist.” This is nothing but a wrongful attempt to discredit the complainants while transforming Albanese from perpetrator into victim.

The claim is easily refuted. While Albanese has made a few token statements condemning the October 7^th attacks over the last 17 months, the totality of her work is the exact opposite—justifying and minimizing the Hamas atrocities that day.

For example, in her March 2024 report to the Human Rights Council, Albanese condemned “the crimes committed by Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups in Israel on 7 October” but then refused to address them, claiming they were “beyond the geographic scope of the mandate.”[4] She has never substantively addressed these atrocities in any of her statements or reporting. As detailed below, just two months prior to the publication of that report she had questioned whether such crimes had even occurred, and she continues to do so.

• On October 7, 2023, as the Hamas massacre was still unfolding, Albanese tweeted “Today’s violence must be put in context” and then proceeded to justify it as a response to “six decades of hostile military rule.” (October 7, 2023).
• Albanese went so far as to defend the Hamas October 7^th invasion of Israel in an interview with JNS, arguing that “Killing soldiers is not an international crime. I mean, why is this so unbelievable? You seem to be puzzled by this. What is the right to resist for the Palestinians? No one wants to live under oppression.” (December 22, 2023).
• Albanese continued to raise doubts about the October 7th atrocities, saying “This is the thing: it’s very difficult to also understand, to have clarity, on what has happened. But let’s assume that what they say in the media is true…” (January 14, 2024)
• In an interview with British Channel 4 News, Albanese, who repeatedly calls Israel’s military operation in Gaza a “genocide,” refused to call Hamas’s heinous massacre of 1200 Israelis on October 7^th an act of genocide. Instead, Albanese criticized those who call the atrocities a ‘genocide’ to justify the “brutal revengeful response” by Israel. (March 18, 2025).
• She defended pro-Palestinian guests on Piers Morgan Uncensored for refusing to condemn Hamas for October 7^th, posting “When someone feels entitled to ask any Palestinian to condemn the horrors and crimes of October 7—after decades of brutal occupation, dispossession, massacres after massacres, torture and humiliation—I stop taking them seriously. Moral authority doesn’t come from selective memory.” (May 16, 2025).
• On Hamas’s sexual violence against Israeli women, Albanese’s first reaction on October 11, 2023 was to deny and minimize. She tweeted “Caution!” “ISR military did not confirm such claims” and warned that “Divulging unverified information risks to escalate tension & endanger lives.” (October 11, 2023).
• Instead of standing with Israeli women, Albanese demonized them in a repugnant tweet on International Women’s Day—March 8, 2024, writing that they “they will be haunted forever” when they “realize” what they have “done” and what they have “become.” (March 8, 2024).
• Even after the publication of extensive witness testimony, photo, video, and forensic evidence and reports by two UN entities affirming the sexual violence committed by Hamas, Albanese continues to engage in denial. In a July 8, 2025 interview on Sky News, in response to a question about a new Israeli report detailing the evidence on Hamas sexual crimes, Albanese again questioned whether such crimes had in fact occurred. She said “I cannot pronounce myself on violence that I don’t know of… IF it has occurred, of course, it deserves justice.” (July 8, 2025).

Additionally, contrary to the Coordination Committee’s claim that claiming Albanese rejects Israel’s right to exist constitutes “misinformation,” internet searches reveal that she has repeatedly rejected Israel’s legitimacy:

• In an interview for the Palestine Chronicle, Albanese attacked Israel’s very existence, saying the Jewish state is “in long-standing breach of the basic principles of international law, which started 70 years ago with the forced depopulation of two-thirds of the indigenous Arab population in what became the State of Israel in British Mandate Palestine.” (October 28, 2021).
• In July 2024, Albanese called to end “Israel’s Apartheid regime,” after posting the month before that “Israel has been an apartheid state toward the Palestinians ‘ab initio,’” a complete rejection of Israel’s legitimacy and right to exist. (June-July 2024)
• Albanese tweeted about Israel’s “violent 55 year-old occupation,” and then endorsed her follower’s correction (later deleted) that it is “74 years, not 55.” Albanese responded to the correction, tweeting “that is another story. Even more painful. Still longing for justice,” meaning, longing for justice regarding the very creation of Israel in 1948. Then Albanese liked a reply claiming that Israel’s occupation goes back more than 100 years, to the Balfour Declaration in 1917. (August 8, 2022).
• Albanese regularly posts to reject Israel’s right to self-defense against Palestinian terrorism as a matter of international law. In a June 19, 2025 post, Albanese denied Israel’s rights to self-defense and actively sought to render Israel defenseless against Palestinian terrorism. Separately, on June 14, 2025, she rejected that Israel’s targeted strikes on Iranian nuclear and military targets constituted self-defense. (June 2025).
• Similarly, Albanese routinely calls for arms embargos on Israel, which would ultimately prevent Israel from being able to defend against deadly Hamas terrorism like the October 7^th She has been advocating for an arms embargo against Israel for years. In May 2021, she called to “end arms sales to Israel,” arguing this would “de-escalate the situation.” (May 13, 2021).

Moreover, Albanese expressly calls to expel Israel from the UN. When the Pillay Commission’s Miloon Kothari made a similar statement in August 2022, he was condemned for it by numerous countries. For example:

• Albanese tweeted “Time to #UnseatIsrael from the UN.” (July 18, 2024).
• In reaction to Israeli operations against Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, Albanese accused Israel of violating international law “for decades” and asked “When will Israel be #Unseated?” (October 13, 2024).
• Albanese again pushed to expel Israel from the UN for being a “serial violator,” tweeting “Precision: unseating Israel is a consequence of it being serial violator of int’l law, including UN Charter, decisions, resolutions, administrative rules, etc.” (December 10, 2024).
• Criticizing the Israeli Knesset legislation banning UNRWA, Albanese tweeted “It is time to UNseat Israel.” (January 22, 2025).

Albanese is the only UN special rapporteur ever to have called for the expulsion from the UN of the country that she is mandated to investigate. In doing so, Albanese grossly violates the terms of her mandate and the Code of Conduct. Even the UN country experts on Iran, Russia and North Korea have never called on the UN to expel those regimes.

The UN Code of Conduct for Special Procedures requires mandate-holders to be impartial and to engage with governments in cooperation and dialogue. This obligation is mentioned in the Code seven times: repeatedly in the Preamble, and in Articles 3, 11 and 13.

Under no circumstances is a UN mandate-holder entitled to call for the removal of a Member State, which is the complete opposite of her duties and obligations. By denying her violations and repeatedly defending her, the Council President and the Coordination Committee are setting a dangerous precedent of UN rapporteurs calling to expel Member States, a prospect that threatens to undermine the integrity of the Special Procedures system as a whole.

D. Albanese Co-Founded and Continues to Participate in a Global Network to Target Israel

The Coordination Committee acknowledges that prior to her appointment, Francesca Albanese was employed by the Arab Renaissance for Democracy and Development (ARDD) and co-founded its “Global Network on the Question of Palestine”—a global anti-Israel lobby that promotes the narrative of Palestinians as victims of Israeli violations since 1948, and ardently defends UNRWA whose senior employees are also senior Hamas leaders.

The Coordination Committee contends that Albanese’s ARDD employment ended “prior to her appointment,” claiming Albanese informed the Committee that she had “stepped down” from ARDD “as soon as the list of shortlisted candidates by the Council was published.”

The Committee acknowledges that Albanese ran a global anti-Israel lobby up until the moment she was shortlisted for the Palestine rapporteur position. This in itself should have disqualified Albanese from being appointed in the first place. However, the Committee claimed in its letter that because Albanese stepped down, it “sees no impropriety or conflict of interest in this regard,” implying that otherwise there would have been a conflict of interest. The Committee’s position is contradictory. It denies an acknowledges the conflict of interest at the same time.

Additionally, Albanese’s purported representation that she resigned immediately upon being shortlisted is false. It is directly contradicted by Albanese’s own statement from March 23, 2025 that she remained at ARDD during her first years as rapporteur: “The first year I kept my job. Until October 2023.” Moreover, she is still listed as an Observer for ARDD’s Global Network on the Question of Palestine.

Likewise, Albanese’s various online bios and the ARDD website continue to list her as an ARDD employee:

• OHCHR Bio – “She is also responsible for the research and legal assistance program on migration and asylum seekers in the Arab world for the think tank Arab Renaissance for Democracy and Development (ARDD).”
• Twitter Bio – “Int’l Lawyer | Scholar | Former UN Official | Sen. Adviser @ARDD @ar_renaissance”
• ARDD website April 2024 – “Albanese, an advisor to ARDD’s Renaissance Strategic Center’s ‘Migration, Forced Displacement and Statelessness’”
• ARDD website August 2024 – “Albanese is currently the UN Special Rapporteur for the Occupied Palestinian Territories and Senior Advisor in ARDD’s Migration, Forced Displacement and Statelessness in the Arab world program.”

Whether or not she is technically employed by ARDD, Albanese continues to be affiliated with that organization and with its Global Network on the Question of Palestine. She regularly presents her UN reports to the GNQP and participates in its activities. Albanes’s association with ARDD directly conflicts with her obligation to maintain independence, objectivity, impartiality, and integrity in her role as a UN expert.

E. Coordination Committee Wrongly Accuses Complainants of Targeting Family Members by Raising Possible Spousal Conflict of Interest

The Coordination Committee rejected any claim of conflict of interest arising from the fact that Albanese’s husband, Massimiliano Cali, had worked for the Palestinian Authority Ministry of Education. The Committee also expressed “serious concerns at the attempt to “target family members” and “scrutinize their personal life.”

This characterization is false. Raising a potential conflict of interest is perfectly legitimate and does not constitute “targeting” family members. Furthermore, conflicts of interest can arise from a candidate’s “personal life.” The Special Rapporteur application itself asks whether the candidate has any “personal relationships” that might “cause the candidate to limit the extent of inquiries, to limit disclosure, or to weaken or slant findings in any way.” Also, there are many examples of parties raising a judge’s family relationships as a basis for recusal. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas recused himself 17 times from cases involving his son’s university or employer. Therefore, this is a valid basis for objection.

The Committee dismissed the conflict here, claiming that Cali’s contract was through UNDP and that “he had no direct contact with the Palestinian Authority.” Nevertheless, in his official biography, Cali represents himself as having “served as an economic advisor to the Palestinian Ministry of National Economy” and he did in fact advise the PA Ministry. In that capacity, he authored report on Israel’s “exploitative” policy regarding “Palestinian natural resources”—a topic that has featured prominently in Albanese’s work as Special Rapporteur, including in her latest June 2025 report to the Human Rights Council. This certainly raises the question of a conflict of interest.

The Committee also found that “Ms. Albanese’s husband did not publish ‘joint’ Facebook posts with her.” While some of these posts appear to have been deleted, UN Watch had in fact documented several joint Facebook posts with screenshots showing that Albanese shared her husband’s posts. The posts contain many of Albanese’s chief talking points, such as that Israel is guilty of genocide and apartheid.

F. Albanese Regularly and Publicly Supports Terror Groups

In response to complaints that Albanese endorses and promotes Hamas terrorism, the Coordination Committee found that “there is no merit” to this allegation because her “reports and statements are fully in line with her mandate” and are “consistent with international human rights and humanitarian law.”

The Committee’s three-line summary dismissal of this point without even mentioning the evidence or attempting to refute it again proves that the Committee did not conduct a genuine review. As detailed in the examples below, Albanese has a long history of openly justifying Hamas-style jihadi terrorism against Israel in her public appearances and on social media.

• Shortly after being appointed in May 2022, Albanese asserted “Palestinian violence is inevitable because the right to exist of the Palestinian people has been denied for 55 years.” (May 2022, RAI News Interview).
• Albanese also said “Israel says ‘resistance equals terrorism’ but an occupation requires violence and generates violence. The Palestinians have no other room for dissent than violence.” (June 2022, Atreconomia).
• Astonishingly, Albanese participated in an official Hamas conference. Speaking by video, she told the assembled terrorists, “You have a right to resist this occupation.” She added: “Israel says ‘resistance equals terrorism,’ but an occupation requires violence and generates violence.” Albanese participated in the Hamas conference together with Ghazi Hamad, former Hamas Deputy Foreign Minister; Abd al-Latif al-Qanu, Hamas spokesperson; Ahmad al-Mudallal, Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) leader; Khadr Habib, PIJ leader in Gaza; as well as Basem Naim and Isam al-Da’alis from Hamas. (November 2022, CIR Palestine).
• As far back as 2014, Albanese argued for a militarized Hamas to rule Gaza, writing “Israel demands a demilitarized (and ‘de-hamasised’) Gaza. So that it can rule over it the same way it does in the West Bank.” (July 25, 2014, X).
• In an interview with JNS, Albanese implied that the Palestinians had no other choice but to invade Israel in response to its “illegal” occupation and other violations—“So excuse me, what did the Palestinians have to do…I’m just asking what they are left with?” (December 22, 2023, JNS).
• Albanese blamed the October 7 Hamas atrocities on Israeli policies that had “turned some of the people into these individuals full of rage and vengeance.” (May 15, 2024, DAWN).
• Albanese repeatedly legitimized Islamic Jihad rocket attacks against Israeli civilians, instead condemning Israel’s airstrikes on the terrorist group (August 2022). She again endorsed this tweet in August 2024 when she whitewashed the Hamas October 7 atrocities, tweeting that “’The war’ did not start on October 7” and blaming Israel for all the past conflicts with Hamas. (August 10, 2024, X).
• When the United States sanctioned the PFLP-affiliated Addameer organization, Albanese tweeted support: “My full solidarity to @Addameer.” (June 11, 2025, X).

Additionally, Albanese is well aware that her reports and statements have been regularly used and relied upon by terrorist groups and their sponsors to justify terrorist attacks against Israelis and Jews both before and after October 7, 2023. Below are some examples:

• Basem Naim, Member of Hamas Politburo: The Hamas website Seraj TVreported that Dr. Basem Naim “expressed his appreciation” to UN Rapporteur Albanese and said “Today we listened with great care to the report of UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese, which she read before the Human Rights Council, in which she noted that the Israeli military occupation has turned the entire Palestinian territories into an ‘open prison.’” (Seraj TV, July 12, 2023).
• Jihad Taha, Hamas Spokesman: The Hamas website Seraj TVreported that Hamas spokesman Jihad Taha praised Albanese’s speech to the Human Rights Council and “renewed Hamas’s call to the international community and the United Nations to work to do justice to our people and our cause by condemning and boycotting the rogue Zionist entity.” (Seraj TV, July 11, 2023).
• Abdul Latif al-Qanou, Hamas Spokesman:The Telegram channel of Hamas-run Al-Aqsa TV posted the following quote attributed to Hamas Spokesman Abdul Latif al-Qanou: “We commend the position of the United Nations Special Rapporteur in the occupied Palestinian territories, Francesca Albanese, in which she condemned the violations of the government of the gross occupation against our people.” (Al-Aqsa TV Telegram Channel, September 2, 2023).
• Ahmed Bahar, Former Speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) and Senior Hamas Leader: The Hamas website Seraj TVreported that Acting Speaker of the Legislative Council, Ahmed Bahar “praised” Albanese’s position at the Human Rights Council, as confirming the position that “the occupation is committing war crimes and crimes against humanity in occupied Palestine in violation of all international laws, charters, and norms.” (Seraj TV, July 11, 2023).
• The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP): An official press statement from the PFLP published by the Resistance News Networkon Telegram stated that the PFLP “welcomed the report issued by the United Nations Special Rapporteur for the Palestinian territories, Francesca Albanese, presented to the Human Rights Council in Geneva, and her conclusion that ‘Israel’ committed acts of genocide in the [Gaza] Strip…” (Resistance News Network Telegram Channel, March 27, 2024).
• Hamas’s Shehab News Agency: The Telegram channel of Hamas-affiliated Shehab News Agencyposted the following: “UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Palestine, Francesca Albanese: A Palestinian state already exists, and Israel is practicing apartheid against Palestinians and growing more brutal and sadistic towards its victims every day.” (Shehab News Agency Telegram Channel, July 22, 2024).
• Hamas’s Shehab News Agency: The Telegram channel of Hamas-affiliated Shehab News Agencyposted the following: “UN Special Rapporteur on Palestine, Francesca Albanese: Israel cannot claim self-defense in this conflict, and the deliberate killing of Palestinians continues and has reached a shameful stage.” (Shehab News Agency Telegram Channel, August 7, 2022).
• Iran’s Islamic Republic News Agency: In an article titled “Palestinians have right to resist oppression: UN rapporteur,” Iran’s Islamic Republic News Agencyreported that Albanese said, “Palestinians – like it or not – have the right to resist oppression.” (Islamic Republic News Agency, September 17, 2024).

The fact that terrorist groups like Hamas and DFLP, and the Mollah regime in Iran rallied behind Albanese after U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio announce sanctions against her, indicates that these entities view her as an ally and supporter.

• Hamas: The Hamas Telegram Channel published a statement that U.S. sanctions against Albanese “undermine the foundations of international and humanitarian law.” (Hamas Telegram via Newsweek, July 11, 2025).
• DFLP: The DFLP Legal Department stated that it “condemns U.S. sanctions on Albanese” and that this shows that the U.S. is “hostile to international law.” (DFLP, July 10, 2025).
• Islamic Republic of Iran: The Spokesman for the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs tweeted “Truth cannot be suppressed by sanctions” and defended Albanese saying that “#FrancescaAlbanese is bullied and sanctioned for telling the truth & for standing up against genocide, occupation and apartheid.” (IRIMFA_SPOX, July 11, 2025).

G. Accomplices to Antisemitism and Terror Support Should be Called Out; Doing so is not “Targeting”

The Coordination Committee concluded that there was “nothing problematic” in “various institutions or individuals supporting Ms. Albanese’s work.” Instead of acknowledging the fact that Albanese has been condemned for antisemitism by France, Germany, Canada, and the U.S., the Committee expressed concern about universities and students being “targeted” for “performing legitimate human rights work” and “portrayed as accomplices to antisemitism.”

One of the many condemnations against Albanese is from the Canadian Special Envoy for Antisemitism, Deborah Lyons—herself a former UN official—who accused Albanese of “Holocaust distortion and inversion.” Albanese has now been sanctioned by the U.S. government for her “political and economic warfare against the United States and Israel.” It is astonishing that the Coordination Committee refuses to even acknowledge the condemnations by these democracies.

Any individual or entity who provides assistance to Albanese is supporting a condemned antisemite. Therefore, it is perfectly legitimate to call them out for that. If a University were supporting a person who incited hatred against members of the LGBT community or people of color, surely the UN would agree that should be condemned and stopped. Yet, by adopting the Coordination Committee’s finding that Albanese is not antisemitic—in contravention of the mainstream view—the UN is condoning support for a racist. There should be no double standard.

H. Not only did Albanese Commit Financial Improprieties; She also Lied About it

In response to issues raised concerning payments to Albanese for her official UN work and the sources of funding for her Australia trip, the Coordination Committee states that it already addressed the issue in its 28 March 2025 letter and reiterates that “no breach of the Code of Conduct was found in this respect.”

UN Watch notes that in its 28 March 2025 letter to the Council President, the Committee acknowledged Albanese’s financial improprieties. It found that:

• Albanese Took Funding From (Pro-Hamas) “External Organizations”: Contrary to all of her denials and those by the UN, it turns out that Albanese did take funding from pro-Hamas groups for her travel in Australia and New Zealand, which the committee euphemistically referred to as “external groups.” The identity of these pro-Hamas groups, named in the report below, is known given that they had themselves boasted online of their “sponsorship and support” for Albanese’s travel. Though the committee tried to spin the funding of her globe-crossing travel as “common practice,” they produced no evidence whatsoever that pro-terrorist lobby groups can fund work by rapporteurs, concerning the very issues on which they are lobbying.
• Albanese’s Asking Money to Address Columbia University Gaza Encampment Was “Inappropriate”: The Coordination Committee found that Albanese’s solicitation of an honorarium to be paid to her assistant—in exchange for her willingness to speak at a supposed “Gaza solidarity encampment” at Columbia University—was ethically “inappropriate.” Indeed, Albanese herself acknowledged that she “cannot take honorarium for anything she does in her official capacity.” Asking for money to be paid to her office instead was equally unethical.

In this regard, the Coordination Committee has not reviewed or considered UN Watch’s latest report titled “Nothing to Hide”: How the UN and Francesca Albanese Engaged in a Cover-Up to Conceal Her Funding by Pro-Hamas Lobby Groups. That report details how Albanese further breached her duty of integrity under Article 3 of the Code of Conduct when she repeatedly lied about the sources of funding for her Australia and New Zealand trip.

Notwithstanding the overwhelming public evidence that pro-Hamas lobby groups in Australia and New Zealand funded the trip and the Coordination Committee’s 28 March 2025 admission that there was “partial external funding” for “internal trips within Australia and New Zealand,” Albanese continuously denied the allegation that she received funding from pro-Hamas lobby groups and insisted that the UN had paid for her trip.

• On November 23, 2023, Albanese tweeted in response to Hillel Neuer’s initial demand for information: “Yet another trail of egregiously false claims agst [sic] me. My trip to Australia was paid by the UN as part of my mandate’s activities.”
  Albanese’s denial was echoed in the media of Hamas-supporting regimes: “UN rapporteur debunks claims of ‘Palestinian lobby groups’ funding Australia trip,” reported Qatar’s Doha News; “UN expert on Palestine pushes back ‘false claims’ over Australia trip, Francesca Albanese says time wasted on defaming her,” wrote Turkey’s Anadolu Agency.
• On November 27, 2023, in a tweet response to a Sky News report about the scandal, Albanese doubled down: “The ‘Palestinian lobby’—falsely accused by UN Watch of funding my trip to Australia—confirms the UN funded it.” She attached a screenshot of an AFOPA statement: “Ms Albanese was authorised by the UN to accept AFOPA’s invitation to deliver the Edward Said Memorial Lecture. The UN funded Ms Albanese’s travel & accommodation costs. No Palestinian Solidarity group paid for this trip. As this malicious effort to discredit Ms Albanese and AFOPA may have legal implications, further comment will not be made.”

• On June 6, 2024, in response to UN Watch’s second complaint, Albanese remained steadfast on her refusal to admit the outside funding, tweeting that she performs her duties “without financial compensation to preserve my independence,” and that “I have never got paid for anything I have done in this capacity.”
• On July 3, 2024, after the UN opened an OIOS investigation regarding UN Watch’s complaint, Albanese again doubled down, refusing to acknowledge that parts of her Australia trip had been funded by these external groups. She tweeted: “I welcome any review of my mandate & all documents are available to the UN because I have never had, and will never have, anything to hide.”

Accordingly, many questions remain, including which groups paid for Albanese’s “internal trips within Australia and New Zealand,” and why she lied about that. The matter requires further investigation.

I. Coordination Committee Misrepresents Legitimate Demand for Accountability From UN Official as “Unacceptable Threats”

At the end of its letter, the Coordination Committee lodged a gratuitous attack on the complainants, including UN Watch, when it expressed “serious concern” about “serious and unacceptable threats” against Albanese, including “calls for legal action.” Absurdly, the Committee seems to be suggesting that attempts to hold special rapporteurs accountable for Code of Conduct violations are “unacceptable.” What is the purpose of adopting a Code of Conduct if not to ensure it is adhered to and enforced?

Moreover, Albanese has been condemned by multiple stakeholders for antisemitic incitement, which is a crime in many countries. If she has committed a crime, the matter must be addressed by the relevant law enforcement authorities and courts. On top of that, the U.S. has now imposed sanctions against Albanese under U.S. law. There is no grounds for the Committee to accuse UN Watch or any other complainant of making “serious and unacceptable threats” against Albanese by virtue of calling for “legal action.”

The Committee also stressed that Albanese “enjoys the privileges and immunities of an expert on mission” in relation to “the exercise of official functions.” However, that is not the case. Since the purported re-appointment of Albanese was carried out illegally in violation of 8/PRST/2, it is null and avoid. Therefore, Albanese no longer benefits from any immunity.

Furthermore, other than her official UN reports and press releases, most of Albanese’s statements and activities are undertaken in her personal capacity rather than her “official functions.” Therefore, even during her first term, Albanese cannot benefit from immunity for most of her endeavors. As a case in point, declassified documents from the Australian Foreign Ministry, prepared as media talking points during Albanese’s November 2023 visit, confirm that she was “not visiting Australia in her official capacity as UN Special Rapporteur.”

In that regard, although Albanese represents her X account as being an official account for the “UN Special Rapporteur on oPt,” few of her posts on X actually concern her official activities as Special Rapporteur—e.g., sharing official reports, speeches, press releases, investigations, or country missions. As the examples cited in this report show, her posts routinely violate Article 3 of the Special Procedures Code of Conduct because they lack “integrity” meaning “probity, impartiality, equity, honesty and good faith.” Moreover, the fact that she regularly blocks people with whom she does not agree, shutting down rather than advancing “dialogue and cooperation,” in violation of Article 3 of the Code of Conduct and basic professional standards expected of UN officials, strongly indicates that her social media usage is primarily personal.

J. Conclusion

The Coordination Committee’s call on Israel to “cooperate with the Special Rapporteur” shows how the Committee is completely disconnected from reality. Why would a Member State cooperate with someone who has made it her mission to demonize, delegitimize, and criminalize that State’s very existence? Albanese says that “Israel commits crimes like it breathes” and has repeatedly called to unseat Israel from the UN. These are not positions that inspire confidence in Albanese’s ability to be objective or fair and they certainly do not encourage any kind of cooperation.

It is notable that the entire tone of the Coordination Committee’s letter is dismissive and defensive. The Committee responds to every complaint against Albanese in absolute terms with zero moderation, always finding that there is no violation—e.g., “no breach,” “no evidence,” “no impropriety,” “no conflict,” “no merit,” “nothing problematic,” “no case to invoke 8/PRST/2.” This is shocking considering the extent of the evidence provided to the Committee by UN Watch alone.

Just the fact that Albanese was condemned for antisemitism by France, Germany, the U.S., and Canada and this was not mentioned once by the Coordination Committee, raises serious doubts as to the Coordination Committee’s methodology and the thoroughness of its investigation. Albanese has thousands of tweets and many public appearances. Did the Committee review all her social media posts, lectures, and media interviews? It is obvious that the Committee had already made up its mind and tailored its “findings” to those predetermined conclusions.

The Coordination Committee has proven itself to be the very opposite objective. This is not surprising considering that it is a body comprised of Albanese’s friends who collaborate with her on joint statements and activities and had already pronounced themselves on the issues in official letters, press releases, and personal social media posts.

For the reasons above, it is patently clear that under law the Coordination Committee was not competent to assess the objections to Albanese’s re-appointment and that its findings are meaningless. Therefore, we hereby request the UN to acknowledge that the Committee was legally disqualified from reviewing Albanese’s violations of the Code of Conduct or making any “findings” in that regard.

The obligations of the President of the Human Rights Council pursuant to 8/PRST/2 are clear. He was required to convey objections to Albanese’s re-appointment to the Council. The failure to do so rendered her re-appointment null and void. She no longer enjoys any privileges or immunities.

[1] The UN itself appears to be confused about the procedure for renewal of mandate-holder terms. Typically, Special Rapporteurs are appointed for up to six years in two three-year terms with a renewal in the middle. Ms. Albanese was appointed for her initial term during the March 2022 Human Rights Council session and, accordingly, was up for renewal in the March 2025 session.

All stakeholders, including the Council President, understood that her term was up for renewal at the March 2025 session. Albanese’s own statements and videos, repeatedly refer to her renewal for a second term, clearly reflecting this understanding. “On May 1, I will begin my second term,” tweeted Albanese, promoting an event with her ARDD “colleagues.” In the ARDD video, she described what she would do in her second term, and the prospects of her renewal being voted down at the 58th session. Likewise, speaking with Academia for Equality, Albanese stated that her mandate was “automatically renewed” after “all the brouhaha in France, in Germany, in the Netherlands, in the U.S… didn’t translate in any request for a vote of confidence.”

When the session ended without any discussion of the objections, stakeholders understood that Albanese’s term had been renewed. She received congratulations from the State of Palestine’s Misson to the UN in a 6 April 2025 tweet “We congratulate Francesca Albanese on the renewal of her mandate” and from her close colleague, Special rapporteur on health Tlaleng Mofokeng who tweeted on 5 April 2025 “The renewal of your tenure fills many with renewed hope for justice.”

Yet, completely contradicting these statements by Albanese and other stakeholders, the Council President’s own handling of the matter the matter, and 8/PRST/2, the UN Human Rights Office has bizarrely taken the position in a press statement that “There was no ‘renewal’ of any Special Procedures mandate-holders at the 58th session of the Human Rights Council.” Instead, their press statement claimed that no reappointment was in order because Albanese had been originally appointed for a six-year term, which began on 1 May 2022, and therefore “she can serve as Special Rapporteur until 30 April 2028.”

[2] For more information see “Nothing to Hide”: How the UN and Francesca Albanese Engaged in a Cover-up to Conceal Her Funding by Pro-Hamas Lobby Groups, UN Watch (May 2025), https://unwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Report-on-UN-Cover-up-of-Francesca-Albaneses-pro-Hamas-funding.pdf.

[3] T.M. Franck & H.S. Fairley, Procedural Due Process in Human Rights Fact-Finding by International Agencies (1980) 74 American Journal of International Law 308, at pp. 313, 344.

[4] Notably, the “geographic scope of the mandate” did not stop Albanese from criticizing Israel for its military strikes in Iran in June 2025 or from criticizing the U.S. for its detention of Columbia University agitator Mahmoud Khalil and generally defending the protesters.