Human rights council seeks to ‘intimidate’ UN investigators?
UNITED NATIONS (IPS/GIN) - The Human Rights Council in Geneva is seeking the right to implicitly retaliate against human rights investigators—officially known as special rapporteurs—who are critical of abuses by member states.
The 38 special rapporteurs, who focus either on investigating specific countries or on topics such as torture, disappearances or arbitrary executions, usually serve two terms of three years each.
(Left) Doudou Diene, UN Human Rights Council special rapporteur on racism pictured with a translator during a recent stop in Chicago. Photo: Kenneth Muhammad
But the Human Rights Council now wants all mandate-holders to be formally reappointed after they complete their first three-year term, giving the council the option not to renew their contracts.
The London-based human rights group Amnesty International has described this as an attempt to “intimidate” the United Nation’s “independent human rights experts.”
Tania Baldwin-Pask, an adviser to Amnesty International’s International Law and Organizations Program, said the effects of this initiative reach far beyond a single mandate or mandate-holder.
“If accepted, the proposal would mean that mandate-holders become the focus of negotiation, with one of the consequences being that mandate-holders are put at risk of undue political pressure by states,” she added.
Currently, there are 29 special rapporteurs with thematic mandates and nine with specific country mandates, making a total of 38.
According to a draft resolution tabled June 17 in Geneva, “All mandate-holders on completion of their first term of three years would require reappointment for the second term of three years by the Human Rights Council.”
The cosponsors of the resolution include Cuba; Egypt, on behalf of the African Group; India; Russia; Sri Lanka, which was just voted off the council in May and whose term expired in June; and Singapore, a nonmember state of the council.
In a statement, Amnesty International said it is “appalled by efforts by some UN member states to introduce a new measure that would give the council power to remove from office individual UN human rights experts, collectively known as the Special Procedures, after an initial three-year term.”
Last year, Philip Alston, the special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, expressed his disappointment over the refusal of some member states to respond to charges of extrajudicial killings or for having turned down his requests for visits.
In a report to the General Assembly, he said 27 member states failed to agree to his visits, including China, Russia, the United States, El Salvador, Kenya, Thailand, Israel, Uzbekistan and Venezuela.
“The fact that 90 percent of countries identified as warranting a country visit have failed to cooperate with the system and that the (Human Rights) Council has done nothing in response is a major indictment of the system,” said Mr. Alston, a professor of law at New York University and faculty director of its Center for Human Rights and Global Justice.
“No matter how grave the issue and how blatant or compromised the conduct of the relevant government, the Human Rights Council remains entirely unmoved,” Mr. Alston said in his 21-page report, criticizing the UN’s premier body on human rights.
Since his report, the United States has permitted Prof. Alston into the country to study deaths in U.S.-run detention facilities.
Prof. Alston, who will be in the United States through June 30, will visit Washington, D.C.; New York; Montgomery, Ala.; and Austin, Texas. He is expected to meet with federal and local government officials and representatives of several nongovernmental organizations.
He is due to submit a final report on his findings and recommendations at a forthcoming meeting of the Human Rights Council.
The American Civil Liberties Union welcomed Prof. Alston’s fact-finding mission, saying that his visit includes reporting on alleged killings in the U.S. and overseas for which U.S. government and military officials may be responsible, and the failure to prosecute and punish those responsible.
The American Civil Liberties Union called on the U.S., state and local governments to fully cooperate with the special rapporteur.
“The visit of the special rapporteur is a critical opportunity to shine an international spotlight on the pervasive problem of impunity and lack of accountability for deaths in U.S.-run prisons and detention facilities at home and abroad,” said Jamil Dakwar, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Human Rights Program.
“To claim the high moral ground and assert leadership on the issue of human rights, the U.S. must do more to prevent deaths in custody and prosecute those who are responsible for inhumane and cruel treatment of detainees in U.S. custody,” he added.
Prof. Alston will also study alleged killings and deaths in U.S. custody in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
During his four years as special rapporteur, Prof. Alston has been critical of states which have failed to cooperate with him by failing to allow him to visit and by failing to engage with him on urgent appeals and other communications.
He has also undertaken in-depth analysis on some controversial issues, including the interpretation by states of international law, which provides for imposition of the death penalty for the “most serious crimes;” the use of mandatory death sentences; transparency surrounding the death penalty; and the right to seek pardon and commutation of death sentences.
In its statement, Amnesty International said that until now, it has been the custom that mandate-holders serve a maximum period of six years.
This custom was carried over into the council by virtue of its resolution on May 1, which provides the institutional foundation for the council. Since September 2007, special procedure mandates and mandate-holders have been reviewed by the council and continued on this basis.
At no stage during year-long negotiations was the idea to hold a midterm review of mandate-holders.
“The creation of the ability for the Special Procedures parent body to terminate their tenure at midstream would be a radical new measure and its application unprecedented,” the statement added.
To justify this change in the rules, Amnesty International said, a few states attacked individual mandate-holders whose mandates were reviewed by the council in June, including the special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and the special rapporteur on torture.
These states claimed that these mandate-holders had acted beyond the terms of the Council’s Code of Conduct for Special Procedures.
What's
your opinion on this article?
Email this article
