On November 21, the U.N. working group is expected to submit a draft resolution outlining the specifics of the proposed Human Rights Council, which will replace the discredited Human Rights Commission. Member states will start consultations on the basis of this draft on November 28. During the current negotiations, some developing nations presented views that differ from the proposals made by the United States over the council’s status, size, composition, and membership. The following sampling of views summarizes the main aspects of the views of Brazil , Malaysia , Pakistan , Sudan , Thailand , the Republic of Korea , and, as well as the position of the United States . These items are still being negotiated.

The existing United Nations human rights body, the commission, sits for annual sessions of six weeks in Geneva and is a subsidiary organ to the United Nations Economic and Social Council, ECOSOC [one of the six principal organs of the United Nations, which has 54 member states]. The Commission on Human Rights originally consisted of 18 members, but in 1990 its size was increased to 53 states. The members of the commission are elected by ECOSOC for three-year terms on the following basis: 15 from Africa, 12 from Asia, 5 from Eastern Europe, 11 from Latin America and the Caribbean, and 10 from Western Europe and Other states.

Brazil . The HRC should be comparable in size to the commission, while preserving the balance between legitimate representation and efficiency. The membership should be approved by a two-thirds majority, and should be of equitable geographical distribution. The General Assembly should ensure representation of countries that have signed and ratified existing human rights conventions, and that allow unrestricted access to the human rights special procedures. Brazil favors the establishment of a peer review mechanism. It must be ensured that all countries be subject to such peer review. This mechanism will address the issue of politicization, selectivity, and double standards that have undermined the work of the commission. The council should benefit from an annual report on human rights, prepared by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. The report, which will be based on information gathered by the special mechanisms and the treaty bodies, could greatly contribute towards ensuring objectivity and non-selectivity in the peer review. (10/11/05)

Malaysia . The HRC should be a subsidiary organ of the General Assembly and the size of the council should be equal to that of the commission if not larger in order to better reflect the representative character of the body. A reduced membership will increase the tendency for greater politicization, application of double standards, and selectivity. Malaysia disagrees with the notion that the membership or the composition of the commission is a contributory factor to the problem of its “declining credibility and professionalism”. There should be no criteria for membership and geographical regions should be able to determine first the selection of candidate countries. (10/24/05)

Pakistan . The Human Rights Council (HRC) should be a subsidiary body of the General Assembly and the size of the council should remain similar to that of the Commission on Human Rights. For the purposes of transition, the members of the commission should be allowed to serve out the remainder of their terms as members of the council. The council should avoid arbitrary naming of countries and submission of country-specific resolutions, as well as unequal focus on civil and political rights at the expense of economic and social rights. A process of universal review should be introduced, which will identify trends in the field of human rights, rather than be directed against individual countries. When considering country specific human rights violations, clear evidence is needed to show whether the country lacks the political will or the resources to address its problems. Evidence should include objective information, obtained through the procedure for individual complaints or a fact-finding mission. A country situation should be selected on the basis of a recommendation from the sub-commission [the sub-commission is composed of independent experts, who screen individual petitions from non-governmental organizations before referring them to the Commission on Human Rights]. Any country under consideration should be enabled to participate fully in the HRC’s discussions. The number of special procedures should be reduced from 41 to 10-15. [Special procedures is a mechanism where an individual expert or group of experts provide input to the commission on human rights violations, by country or topic]. Their mandates should not duplicate the thematic issues or country situations, already under consideration by the sub-commission. (10/18/05, 11/1/05)

Sudan . The HRC should be a subsidiary organ of the General Assembly and the size of the council should be equal to that of the commission. It should meet annually in two sessions and could convene emergency sessions. A standing council will deprive developing countries that are not represented in Geneva of full and equal participation [some developing countries cannot afford to maintain additional representation in Geneva around the year]. The offer by some member states to provide assistance is appreciated, but this issue is a matter of sovereignty, which goes beyond good intentions. Members should be selected on the basis of equal geographic representation. Having a criterion for membership would deprive a member state of its right to serve on the HRC. (10/24/05)

Thailand . Thailand remains flexible on whether the HRC would be a principal organ or a subsidiary body of the General Assembly. The council’s size should be comparable to the current commission. Thailand is also flexible on whether members should be elected by a simple majority or by a two-thirds majority. To initially set up the council as a subsidiary body might be more realistic given the divergent views of member states. Instead of the proposed six-week session, perhaps two regular sessions, each for three weeks can be held in Geneva. The council can convene a special session, if its members so wish, over the year to address urgent situations. Countries wishing to participate in the work of the council should pledge to undertake serious commitments to promoting human rights, such as by becoming a state party to international human right conventions, organizing international or regional human rights seminars, or engaging in human rights dialogues and sharing best practices. Setting up fixed criteria for membership will not be useful. (10/24/05, 11/1/05)

The Republic of Korea. Creating the HRC as a subsidiary organ of the General Assembly is acceptable in light of the long and difficult process of amending the United Nations Charter. However, this interim step towards a principal organ should not diminish the council’s mandate and functions. To become an effective organ, the council should be allowed to adopt its own rules of procedure once it holds its first meeting. The HRC should be a standing body to fulfill its required functions. As a realistic means to pursue its objectives, the council should be empowered to make reports, including policy recommendations, to the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council, and other U.N. bodies. The Republic of Korea is flexible on the periodic review mechanism. A universal peer review might help assuage the criticism of selectivity or double standards leveled against the commission, but it would also saddle the council with a considerable burden. If the council is not given the means to enforce the universality of its review mechanism, the review process might devolve into nothing more than a seal of approval for states that maintain good records on human rights. (10/18/05, 11/1/05)

United States of America . The HRC should reflect a diverse regional distribution and should have a small enough size to be poised to act. The United States believes 30 members is about right. The HRC should be a standing body that meets multiple times per year. It should start as a subsidiary body of the General Assembly, because a charter amendment will take years to implement. The council’s chair or a simple majority of members, or the high commissioner for human rights, or the secretary general would each be able to call for additional sessions as needed. The council should set its own agenda and working methods and have the authority to make recommendations to the General Assembly and the Security Council. The council needs a mandate to respond to urgent or continuing human rights violations. It should preserve the existing special procedures of the commission, which should be re-affirmed, and revoked as deemed appropriate. Prospective members must have a demonstrated commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights. They should submit to the General Assembly President a letter that outlines their qualifications for membership. The candidates should receive specific endorsements of a majority of states in their regional groups via letters from a senior political level to the General Assembly President that indicate the qualifications for potential candidates. No government against which measures have been imposed under Article 41 and 42 of the U.N Charter, [under which the Security Council may impose sanctions or authorize use of force] for human-rights-related issues, that is subject to a U.N. Security Council Commission of Inquiry, or that is subject to similar U.N. Security Council procedures related to human rights, may serve on the council. (9/22/05, 11/1/05)