Humman Rights Council Advisory Comittee: How to proceed with studies
NEW YORK. August 13, 2008/3mnewswire.org/ -- The Human Rights Council Advisory Committee this morning discussed how to proceed with studies that had been started by the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights.
In the discussion, several Experts stressed the importance of not wasting the work that had already been done. However, a decision from the Human Rights Council was needed to clarify which studies could be continued. An Expert said specific proposals should be made to the Council on which studies should be continued, and this should be a one-by-one decision.
Speaking on the issue were the following Experts of the Advisory Committee: Jean Ziegler, Miguel Alfonso Martinez, Emmanuel Decaux, Vladimir Kartashkin, Chung Chinsung and Chen Shiqiu.
The Russian Federation and Bangladesh also made statements.
The Advisory Committee will meet this afternoon at 3 p.m. to continue its discussion on the studies of the Sub-Commission and to hear the outcomes of its drafting groups on the right to food and on human rights education and training.
Discussion on Studies Prepared by the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights
EMMANUEL DECAUX, Advisory Committee Expert, said that the legacy of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights was an issue that was both important and complicated. There used to be a degree of creativity in the Sub-Commission which had allowed the Human Rights Commission to detect emerging problems.
Mr. Decaux said the Advisory Committee had to select the issues on which it would work. This could happen in a private meeting. There were different ways to approach the workload. For example, the Committee could continue this system and ask the Council to confirm that the Committee should continue the studies. A different approach would be to ask the Council to confirm a certain number of studies. The Committee would then create teams to carry out these studies. As a third option, one of the Members of the Advisory Committee could prepare a paper for the next session identifying the way on how to carry on and stating how the Advisory Committee could produce added value. The paper would identify the priorities to the Advisory Committee.
Mr. Decaux listed the ongoing studies and reports submitted or mandated for submission by Special Rapporteurs to the Sub-Commission in 2006 in accordance with existing legislative authority:
· Progress report on discrimination in the criminal justice system (E/CN.4/Sub.2/2005/7)
· Preliminary report on the difficulties of establishing guilt and/or responsibility wit regard to crimes of sexual violence (A/HRC/Sub.1/58/CRP.9)
· Second progress report on corruption and its impact on full enjoyment of human rights (A/HRC/Sub.1/58/CRP.10)
· Preliminary report on non-discrimination as enshrined in Article 2, paragraph 2, of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (E/CN.4/Sub.2/2005/19 and Corr.1 and 2)
· Progress report on discrimination based on work and descent (A/HRC/Sub.1/58/CRP.2)
· Interim report on human rights and the human genome (E/CN.4/Sub.2/2005/38)
Studies and reports recommended in 2005 to the Commission on Human Rights for approval:
· Accountability of international personnel taking part in peace support operations
· The legal implications of the disappearance of States and other territories for environmental reasons, including the implications for the human rights of their residents, with particular reference to the rights of indigenous peoples
· Discrimination against leprosy victims and their families (E/CN.4/Sub.2/2005/WP.1)
· Economic, social and cultural rights in technical cooperation in the field of human rights.
Mr. Decaux also distributed documents listing working papers, which he did not read out, including ongoing working papers and other documents without financial implications submitted or mandated for submission to the Sub-Commission in 2006; and working papers prepared or mandated for preparation for the working groups of the Sub-Commission in 2006.
MIGUEL ALFONSO MARTINEZ, Advisory Committee President, said the mandate of the Committee was not the same as the Sub-Commission's mandate. And it was under the Sub-Commission's mandate that those studies were started. It was up to the Human Rights Council to decide on the fate of these studies, it was the only body that had the legal mandate to decide on these studies.
VLADIMIR KARTASHKIN, Advisory Committee Expert, said that these issues were quite complicated from a practical and legal point of view. The submitted list of documents did not show very important points. It did not list what the decisions of the Sub-Commission had been on each of the documents that were on hold. The Secretariat should give an update about which documents had been received by the Secretariat and had not been published. He further thought that they legally had no right to continue this work. The former members of the Sub-Commission could not be forced to continue this work, and the Advisory Committee did not have the right to take decisions. There was only one way out: they could prepare a list of important themes, on the basis of the presented document of topics they found important to further develop inside the Advisory Committee. They could also ask the Council to entrust them with the continuation of the studies, this was the only thing they could do. If there was someone volunteering to tackle one of the issues, this could also be possible.
CHUNG CHINSUNG, Advisory Committee Expert, said that there was only one report that the Secretariat had received after 2006. She introduced the issue of discrimination based on work and descent which was discussed at the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights for several years. In 2004, the Sub-Commission appointed Mr. Yozo Yokota and Ms. Chinsung Chung as Special Rapporteurs with the task of preparing a comprehensive study on the subject. In the following years, two reports had been submitted by the Special Rapporteurs. Ms. Chung appealed to the Advisory Committee to submit a proposal to the Human Rights Council to approve this report and consequently to provide a relevant framework for these principles and guidelines to be used to effectively fight discrimination based on work and descent.
EMMANUEL DECAUX, Advisory Committee Expert, wanted to clarify some points: he had never suggested that they continue work on the substance of these studies without receiving the green light from the Council. They needed to have the agreement of the Council first and had to discuss with it what to do. They also had to look into the follow-up of other bodies on each study. Someone could thus draft a document summarizing these facts.
ERIC TISTOUNET, Secretary of the Human Rights Council, said that the Council as part of its mandate had been told to finish all studies within one year of its creation. This meant that studies should have been completed in June 2007. The Sub-Commission had convened its final meeting, preparing a paper giving its own vision on future expert advice and describing all its ongoing studies. The Council then adopted a resolution in which it took note of the views of the Sub-Commission on the ongoing activities. Mr. Tistounet clarified that in order for any action to be undertaken a decision from the Council was needed.
VLADIMIR KARTASHKIN, Advisory Committee Expert, said that they had just received another document, but this one was also incomplete. Some working papers sent by former Sub-Commission members were not reflected in the new document. He himself had submitted a document which had not been issued. He thus was not fully satisfied by Mr. Tistounet's explanation.
JEAN ZIEGLER, Advisory Committee Expert, said that he was struck by the absurdity of the situation. These studies represented knowledge on human rights issues and if they were thrown out, no one would be able to use this work. The Committee had to avoid this waste and the studies should be made available for research and debate on human rights issues. The Committee should propose to the Council in September that these studies should be completed.
MIGUEL ALFONSO MARTINEZ, Advisory Committee President, suggested that Mr. Ziegler draft his ideas as soon as possible, since they had to be submitted to the Secretariat today.
CHEN SHIQIU, Advisory Committee Expert, said that the issue was quite complex. In the past there had been quite a lot of studies. Many of the members who prepared the studies were not part of the Advisory Committee. Some reports were almost finished; some were practically just at the beginning. How should they choose which studies should be continued and which not? If the Committee agreed, they could propose to the Council to make the decision whether one specific study should be continued or not, if one member proposed one study, just like Ms. Chung did.
Mr. Chen said that specific proposals should be made on which studies should be continued. They should not take a decision on all papers. This should be a one-by-one decision. They could still come back at the list in a few years. They did not need to make a decision at this session for all studies. Further, if the authors of some studies were no longer members of the Advisory Committee, an issue to decide on was whether it was permissible to continue the study started by someone else.
CHUNG CHINSUNG, Advisory Committee Expert, wanted to clarify that she did not want a continuation of the study she mentioned earlier. The final report had already been submitted. This paper should be treated in a special way since it had already been submitted.
ALEXANDER PETROV (Russian Federation) said that he heard many times that the Advisory Committee was a successor body to the Sub-Commission, but one should not forget that it was also a new body with a new role. The follow-up of Sub-Commission studies could only happen through the approval of the Human Rights Council. Some of the speakers were right in saying that the Advisory Committee had currently no mandate to continue the studies of the Sub-Commission. Russia, as a member of the Council, had always suggested and supported that the experience and potential of the Sub-Commission should not be lost during the transition period. The Council should take a relevant decision in this regard.
MUSTAFIZUR RAHMAN (Bangladesh) said that there seemed to be a general agreement. A decision had to be taken by the Council on the pending studies. A list had to be prepared in view of the priority and timeliness of the ongoing studies.
CORRIGENDUM
In press release AC/08/12 of 11 August, the statements by Advisory Committee Expert Latif Huseynov should read as follows:
LATIF HUSEYNOV, Advisory Committee Expert, said that in his view they did not need to prolong this discussion. They had reached the consensus that rules of procedures were needed. The establishment of a drafting group had also been agreed upon. Such a group should be set up during the current plenary. Concerning the question of having detailed or comprehensive rules, written rules did not necessarily mean having detailed ones. Written rules would also not prevent the Committee from being flexible. Requirements of independence and impartiality should also be addressed in the rules of procedure of the Committee.
LATIF HUSEYNOV, Advisory Committee Expert, said that they did not need to refer to paragraph 77 to come to a conclusion that they needed rules of procedure. It suggested that when making further research proposals, they needed to be approved by the Council. But their rules of procedure should not be approved by the Council. Also, the suggestion was not to start the work now, but to establish a drafting group that would come out with recommendations at the next session. Further, he did not think that regional representation was a condition sine qua non for their work. If their decisions were all taken in plenary there was no need for regional representation inside groups. Further, he did not think that it was a difficult task to adopt rules of procedure. Also, the impression that the more people were on board of such a group, the better the work would be, was a false impression in his view. Rules of procedure could be done by one person and then be discussed by the plenary. If people found this task too difficult, he could do this work by himself and come up with a proposal at the next session.
LATIF HUSEYNOV, Advisory Committee Expert, said that he agreed with the statement by the Russian Federation, but it was a prerogative for the Advisory Committee to draft and approve their own rules of procedure and these rules did not to have to be adopted, agreed to or sent to any other body for approval. This was their own task and they had the right to adopt them, without the prior approval of the Council.
3mnewswire.org
No comments:
Post a Comment