United Nations Human Rights Council

src: foreignpolicymag.files.wordpress.com

The United Nations Human Rights Council ( UNHRC ) is a United Nations body whose mission is to promote and protect human rights worldwide. UNHRC has 47 members elected for a period of three years reeling by regional group. The 38th session of UNHRC begins on June 18, 2018. It will end on July 6, 2018. UNHRC's headquarters are in Geneva, Switzerland.

UNHRC investigates allegations of human rights abuses in UN member states, and addresses important thematic human rights issues such as freedom of association and assembly, freedom of expression, freedom of belief and religion, women's rights, LGBT rights, racial rights. and ethnic minorities.

UNHRC was established by the UN General Assembly on 15 March 2006 (by A/RES/60/251 resolution) to replace the UN Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR, here CHR) which has been heavily criticized for allowing countries with poor human rights record become a member. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan and Ban Ki-moon, former council presidents Doru Costea, the European Union, Canada and the United States accused UNHRC of focusing disproportionately on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and many accused the anti-Israeli bias- many resolutions that condemn Israel rather than the rest of the world. UNHRC works closely with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and involves special procedures UN .

Video United Nations Human Rights Council

Structure

The members of the General Assembly elect members who occupy 47 UNHRC seats. The period of each seat is three years, and no member can occupy a seat more than two consecutive periods. The seats are distributed among the UN regional groups as follows: 13 for Africa, 13 for Asia, six for Eastern Europe, eight for Latin America and the Caribbean (GRULAC), and seven for Western Europe and Other Groups (WEOG). CHR previously had 53 members elected by the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) through the majority of those present and voting.

The General Assembly may suspend the privileges and privileges of the members of the Council which it has decided to commit gross and systematic human rights violations during its term of membership. The suspension process requires a two-thirds majority vote by the General Assembly. The resolution establishing the UNHRC states that "when electing members of the Council, Member States shall consider the contribution of candidates to the promotion and protection of human rights and their voluntary pledges and commitments made to it", and that "members elected to the Council shall uphold the highest standards of promotion and protection of human rights ".

Sessions

UNHRC organizes regular sessions three times a year, in March, June, and September.

UNHRC may decide at any time to hold special sessions to deal with human rights violations and emergencies, at the request of a third of the member states. To date there have been 20 special sessions.

Members

UNHRC has 47 members, elected annually by the UN General Assembly for a three-year period that is wobbled by regional groups. No member can occupy a seat for more than two successive three-year periods. The seats are distributed among the UN regional groups as follows: 13 for Africa, 13 for Asia, six for Eastern Europe, eight for Latin America and the Caribbean (GRULAC), and seven for Western Europe and Other Groups (WEOG).

Current

The United States was a member during the period 2016-19 but left prematurely in June 2018.

Previous

The election of the first members was held on May 9, 2006. Their term began on 19 June 2006. On May 19, it was announced that Mexico would serve as a Council seat during its first year of existence.

Group 2010 Substitutes for Group 2007 were selected by the General Assembly on May 17, 2007, known as Group 2010 , the year when their validity expired. In this election, Angola and Egypt were elected to the council, while Belarussia was denied.

2011 Group : The successors for Group 2008 were selected by the General Assembly on May 21, 2008, known as the 2011 Group .

Group 2012 : Substitutes for 2009 Groups have been selected by the General Assembly on May 12, 2009, known as Group 2012 .

Group 2013 : Replacements for Group 2010 have been selected by the General Assembly on May 13, 2010, known as Group 2013 .

Group 2014 : Substitutes for 2011 Group selected by the General Assembly on May 20, 2011, known as the 2014 Group .

Group 2015 : Substitute for Groups 2012 was chosen by the General Assembly on November 12, 2012, known as Group 2015 , the year in which they expired.

Groups 2016 : Substitutes for Group 2013 are elected by the General Assembly on 12 November 2013, known as Group 2016 , the year in which their expiration is due.

President

Auxiliary bodies that directly report to UNHRC

The Universal Periodic Review Working Group

An important component of the Council consists in the regular review of all 193 UN member states, called the Universal Periodic Review (UPR).

This new mechanism is based on reports from different sources, one of which is donations from NGOs. The situation of each country will be examined during the three and a half hour debate.

The first cycle of UPR occurs between 2008 and 2012, and the second cycle of reviews begins in 2012 and is expected to be completed by 2016.

The General Assembly resolution establishing the Council, provided that "the Council shall review its work and function five years after its establishment". The main work of this review was conducted in the Intergovernmental Working Group established by the Council in Resolution 12/1 1 October 2009 This review was completed in March 2011, adopting the "Results" at the sixteenth session of the Council, annexed to Resolution 16/21.

First Cycle: The following terms and procedures are set out in General Assembly Resolution 60/251:

• Reviews will occur over a four year period (48 countries per year). Thus, 192 countries that are members of the United Nations will normally have such Reviews between 2008 and 2011;
• The review order should follow the same principle of universality and treatment;
• All the Member States of the Council shall be reviewed as they sit on the Board and the early members of the Council shall be first;
• The selection of countries to be reviewed should respect the principle of fair geographical allocation;
• The first Member State and the first observer State to be examined will be randomly selected in each regional group to ensure full compliance with a fair geographical allocation. Reviews should then be done alphabetically.

The second cycle: Resolution HRC 16/21 brings the following changes:

• Reviews will occur over a period of four and a half years (42 countries per year). Thus, 193 countries that are members of the United Nations will normally have such Reviews between 2012 and 2016;
• The review order will be similar to cycle 1;
• The duration of each Review will be extended from three to three and a half hours;
• The second and subsequent cycles of the review should focus on, among other things, implementation of recommendations.

Similar mechanisms exist in other organizations: the International Atomic Energy Agency, the Council of Europe, the International Monetary Fund, the Organization of American States, the International Labor Bureau and the World Trade Organization.

Except for the three-yearly report on the development of a human rights policy, that Member States must submit to the Secretary-General since 1956, the UPR Council Human Rights Procedure is the first in the area. This marks the end of discrimination that has plagued the work of the Commission on Human Rights and has caused it to be severely criticized. Finally, this mechanism shows and affirms the universal nature of human rights.

Advisory Committee

The Subcommittee on Promotion and Protection of Human Rights is the main body of the CHR. The Sub-Commission consists of 26 selected human rights experts whose mandate is to conduct studies on discriminatory practices and make recommendations to ensure that racial, national, religious, and linguistic minorities are protected by law.

In 2006 the newly formed UNHRC accepted responsibility for the Sub-Commission. The Sub-Commission mandate was extended for one year (until June 2007), but met for the last time in August 2006. At the last meeting, the Sub-Commission recommended the establishment of a Human Rights Consultative Committee to advise UNHRC.

In September 2007, UNHRC decided to establish an Advisory Committee to provide expert advice with 18 members, distributed as follows: five from African countries; five from Asian countries; three from Latin American and Caribbean countries; three from Western European countries and others; and two members from Eastern European countries.

Complaint Procedures

The UNHRC complaint procedure was established on 18 June 2007 (by UNHRC Resolution 5/1) to report consistent and proven patterns of human rights violations and basic freedoms in different parts of the world and under any circumstances.

UNHRC has established two working groups for the Grievance Procedure:

• The Working Group of Communication - consists of five experts appointed by the Advisory Committee of its members, one from each regional group. Experts serve for three years with a possible update. Experts determine whether a complaint is worth investigating, which in this case is forwarded to the WGS.

• Working Group on Situation - has five members, designated by regional groups from among its members on the Board for one year, which can be updated once. The WGS meets twice a year for five working days to check the communications transferred to it by the WGC, including the reply of the countries there, as well as the situation that existed before UNHRC under the grievance procedure. The WGS, based on the information and recommendations provided by the WGC, presents the UNHRC with reports on a consistent pattern of human rights violations and fundamental freedoms that are proven and make recommendations to UNHRC on the actions to be taken.

File a complaint

The WGC Chair screened a complaint for acceptance. Complaints should be in writing, and should not be anonymous. Examples provided by UNHRC on cases considered to be consistent patterns of gross human rights violations include alleged deterioration of human rights of persons belonging to minorities, including forced evictions, racial segregation and sub-standard living conditions, alleged degrading situations prison conditions for both. prisoners and prison workers, resulting in the violence and death of inmates. Individuals, groups or non-governmental organizations may claim to be victims of human rights violations or who have direct and reliable knowledge of the violations. Complaints by a single victim of a single incident accusing their human rights violations will not be accepted.

A complaint may concern any country, regardless of whether it has ratified a specific agreement. The complaint is confidential and UNHRC will only communicate with the complainant unless he decides that the complaint will be dealt with publicly.

Interaction with complainants and UNHRC during the complaint procedure will be conducted as required. UNHRC Resolution 5/1, paragraph 86, emphasizes that the procedure is victim-oriented. Paragraph 106 provides that complaint procedures should ensure that complainants are notified of the process at key stages. The WGC may request further information from the complainant or a third party.

After initial screening, an information request will be sent to the country in question, which will be replied within three months after the request is made. The WGS will then report to UNHRC, which will normally be in the form of a draft resolution or a decision on the situation referred to in the complaint.

UNHRC will decide on the steps taken secretly as needed, but this will happen at least once a year. As a general rule, the time period between the sending of the complaint to the country concerned and the consideration by UNHRC shall not exceed 24 months. Individuals or groups that make a complaint should not publicly state the fact that they have filed a complaint.

In order for received complaints to be:

• in writing and must be submitted in one of the six official UN languages ​​(Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian, and Spanish).
• contains relevant fact descriptions (including alleged victim names, dates, locations, and other evidence), with as much detail as possible, and no more than 15 pages.
• is not manifestly politically manifest.
• is not exclusively based on reports distributed by the mass media.
• has not been addressed by any special procedures, treaty bodies or other United Nations or similar regional complaints procedures in the field of human rights.
• be after the domestic improvement has been exhausted, except it seems that the solution will not be effective or does not make sense for prolonged.
• do not use abusive or offensive language.

The complaint procedure is not designed to provide recovery in individual cases or to compensate victims allegedly.

Effectiveness Procedures

Because of the secret procedure, it is almost impossible to know what complaints have passed the procedure and also how effective the procedure is.

There is a principle of non-duplication, which means that complaint procedures can not take into consideration the cases that have been dealt with by specific procedures, treaty bodies or other United Nations or similar regional complaints procedures in the field of human rights.

On the UNHRC website under the complaint procedure section there is a list of circumstances referring to UNHRC under complaints procedures since 2006. It is only available to the public by 2014, but generally does not provide details on situations that are under consideration other than the countries involved.

In some cases the information is slightly more revealing, for example the situation listed is the situation of unions and human rights defenders in Iraq that are considered in 2012, but UNHRC decided to stop that consideration.

The complaint procedure has been said to be too lenient because of its secret nature. Some people often question the value of procedures, but their effectiveness should not be underestimated, 94% of countries respond to complaints filed with them.

The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) receives between 11,000 and 15,000 communications per year. During 2010-11, 1,451 out of 18,000 complaints were submitted for further action by the WGC. UNHRC considers four complaints in their 19th session in 2012. Although most of the situations that have been deemed to have been terminated, the procedure should not be questioned as it still has an impact and should proceed.

History shows that the procedure works almost like a petition; if enough complaints are received then UNHRC is very likely to establish a special rapporteur for the country or for the problems it faces. It has been said that the advantages of this procedure are secret ways, which offer the ability to engage with the country through a more diplomatic process, which can produce better results than a more hostile public allegation process.

This procedure is a useful tool for the international community to have in a situation where naming and shaming are proving ineffective. Another advantage is that complaints can be made against any country, regardless of whether it has ratified certain agreements.

Due to the limited information provided in the complaint procedure, it is difficult to comment on the process itself, the resources it uses versus its effectiveness. Very likely to be happening behind the scenes, such as communication between WGS and state.

Other support bodies

In addition to the UPR, Grievance Procedures and Advisory Committee, other UNHRC subsidiary bodies include:

• The Expert Mechanism on Indigenous Peoples' Rights, which replaces the CHR Working Group on Indigenous Peoples
• The Forum on Minor Issues, established to provide a platform for promoting dialogue and cooperation on issues relating to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities
• The Social Forum, established as a space for dialogue between representatives of Member States, civil society, including grassroots organizations, and intergovernmental organizations on issues related to the national and international environment needed to promote the enjoyment of all human rights by all.

Custom procedures

"Special Procedure" is a common name given to the mechanism set by the Human Rights Council to collect expert observations and advice on human rights issues in all parts of the world. Specific procedures are categorized as thematic mandates, which focus on major phenomena of human rights violations worldwide, or state mandates, which report on human rights situations in a particular country or region. Specific procedures may be individuals (called "Special Rapporteurs" or "Independent Specialists"), which are intended to be independent experts in a particular field of human rights, or working groups, typically of five members (one from each UN region). As of September 30, 2016, there are 43 thematic mandates and 14 countries.

The mandate of a specific procedure is defined and determined by the resolution that created it. Various activities may be undertaken by mandate holders, including responding to individual grievances, conducting studies, advising on technical cooperation, and engaging in promotional activities. Generally the mandate holders of special procedures report to the Human Rights Council at least once a year for their findings.

Custom procedure holder

The mandates of the special procedure serve in their personal capacity, and do not receive payment for their work. The independent status of the mandate holders is crucial in order to fulfill their function in all impartiality. The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights provides staff and logistical support to assist each of the mandates in carrying out their work.

Applicants for the mandate of Special Procedures are reviewed by the Consultative Group of five countries, one from each region. After an interview by the Consultative Group, the Group provides a short list of candidates to the President of UNHRC. After consultation with the leadership of each regional grouping, the President presents a single candidate for approval by UNHRC Member States at the session after the creation of a new mandate or upon the expiration of the mandate of the mandate holders.

The state mandate must be renewed annually by UNHRC; the thematic mandate must be updated every three years. The mandates, whether they hold a thematic or special-state mandate, are generally limited to six years of service.

The following is a list of the mandate holder of the thematic special procedure:

Thematic mandate holder

Special Rapporteur of the United Nations

• Adequate Housing, Ms. Leilani Farha (Canada)
• Cultural Rights, Ms. Farida Shaheed (Pakistan)
• Education, Mr. Kishore Singh (India)
• Extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions, Christof Heyns (South Africa)
• Extreme Poverty, Magdalena SepÃÆ'ºlveda Carmona (Chile)
• Freedom of Assembly and Association, Mr. Maina Kiai (Kenya)
• Freedom of Expression and Expression, Mr. Frank La Rue (Guatemala)
• Freedom of Religion or Belief, Mr. Heiner Bielefeldt (Germany)
• Dangerous Substances and Waste, Mr. C? lin Georgescu (Romania)
• Health, Mr. Anand Grover (India)
• Human Rights Defenders, Ms. Margaret Sekaggya (Uganda)
• Human Rights When Fighting Terrorism, Mr. Ben Emmerson (United Kingdom and Northern Ireland)
• Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Ms. Gabriela Knaul (Brazil)
• Indigenous peoples, Ms. Victoria Tauli-Corpuz (Philippines)
• Internally Displaced Persons, Dr. Chaloka Beyani (Zambia)
• Migrants, Mr. FranÃÆ'§ois CrÃÆ' Â © peau (Canada)
• Racism, Mr Mutuma Ruteere (Kenya)
• The Right to Food, Olivier de Schutter (Belgium)
• Child Sales, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography, Najat Maalla M'jid (Morocco)
• Slavery, Gulnara Shahinian (Armenia)
• Torture, Mr. Juan E. MÃÆ' © ndez (Argentina)
• People Trafficking, Ms. Joy Ngozi Ezeilo (Nigeria)
• Truth, Justice, Reparations, and Guarantees do not happen, Mr. Pablo de Greiff (Colombia)
• Violence Against Women, Ms. Rashida Manjoo (South Africa)
• Water, Miss Catarina de Albuquerque (Portugal)

Independent experts

• The International Order of Democratic and Fair, Mr. Alfred de Zayas (USA)
• Environment (TBD)
• Foreign Debt, Cephas Lumina (Zambia)
• International Solidarity, Ms. Virginia B. Dandan (Philippines)
• Minority Issue, Ms. Rita IzsÃÆ'¡k (Hungary)

Team work

• Arbitrary Detention, Mr. El Hadji Malick Sow (Senegal), Mrs. Shaheen Sardar Ali (Pakistan), Mr. Roberto Garreton (Chile), Mr. Vladimir Tochilovsky (Ukraine), Mr Mads Andenas (Norway))
• Discrimination Against Women in Law and Practice, Ms. Kamala Chandrakirana (Indonesia), Ms. Emna Aouij, (Tunisia), Ms. Mercedes Barquet (Mexico), Ms. Frances Raday (Israel/United Kingdom), Ms. Eleonora Zielinska (Poland)
• Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, Mr. Olivier de Frouville (France), Bpk. Ariel Dulitzky (Argentina/US), Ms. Jazminka Dzumhur (Bosnia and Herzegovina), Tn. Jeremy Sarkin (South Africa), Tn. Osman el-Hajje (Lebanon)
• Human Rights and Transnational Corporations, Ms. Margaret Jungk (USA), Mr. Michael K. Addo (Ghana), Ms. Alexandra Guaqueta (Colombia/USA), Mr. Puvan J. Selvanathan (Malaysia), Mr. Pavel Sulyandziga (Russian Federation)
• Mercenaries, Ms. Faiza Patel (Pakistan), Ms. Patricia Arias (Chile), Ms. Elzbieta Karska (Poland), Mr. Anton Katz (South Africa), Mr. Gabor Rona (AS/Hungary)
• The African population, Mirjana Najcevska (Republic of Macedonia), Bisphas Monica (Bangladesh), Mireille Fanon-Mendes-France (France), Maya Maya (Algeria) and Mother Verene Shepherd (Jamaica)

Country-specific holder

The Special Rapporteur

• Cambodia, Dr. Rhona Smith (UK);
• Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Mr. Marzuki Darusman (Indonesia);
• The Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, Mr. Richard Falk (United States);
• Islamic Republic of Iran, Mr. Ahmed Shaheed (Maldives);
• Myanmar, Mr. Thomas Ojea Quintana (Argentina);
• Syria, Mr. Paulo Sergio Pinheiro (Brazil - to start once the Commission of Inquiry is Over)

Pakar Independen

• CÃÆ'´te d'Ivoire, Tuan Doudou Diene (Senegal);
• Haiti, Tuan Michel Forst (Prancis);
• Somalia, Tuan Shamsul Bari (Bangladesh);
• Sudan, Tuan Mashood Baderin (Nigeria)

respon Internasional untuk pemilihan Richard Falk sebagai Pelapor Khusus tentang "Pendudukan Palestina Wilayah "

According to a United Nations press release, the Israeli ambassador to the United Nations Itzhak Levanon strongly criticized the appointment stating that Falk had written in an article that it was not "an irresponsible exaggeration to link the Palestinian treatment with a Nazi record criminalized from collective atrocities. , "argues that" a person who openly and repeatedly expresses such views is unlikely to be regarded as independent, impartial or objective. " According to The Jewish Daily Forward Falk said: "Is it excessively excessive to link the Palestinian treatment with the Nazi record being criminalized from collective cruelty?" I think not. Levanon further stated, "He has taken part in a UN fact-finding mission stipulating that a suicide bombing is a legitimate method of 'struggle' He has disturbed Israel by 'genocidal tendencies', accusing him of trying to achieve security through 'state terrorism' A person who openly and repeatedly expressed such views is unlikely to be regarded as independent, impartial or objective. "The Israeli government announced it would refuse Falk's visas to Israel, the West Bank and Gaza Strip, at least until the September 2008 Human Rights Council meeting.

The United Nations permanent envoy Itzhak Levanon (Israel) said "that as a list of candidates for special procedures mandate holders today, [he] is overwhelmed with a sense of loss of opportunity." The mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in the Palestinian Territories is very unbalanced, is the best and most evil, it is impossible to believe that out of a list of 184 potential candidates, a truly wise Consultative Group member has made the best possible choice for this post. "

Warran Tichenor (United States) says, "that special procedures, including state mandates, enable the Human Rights Council the opportunity to view, monitor and assist certain countries develop and improve their human rights situation.The United States respects the integrity of the procedures for selecting candidates but expressed its concern to the mandate holder selected for the task of assessing the human rights situation in the occupied Palestinian Territories. "

Marius Grinius of Canada said, "that the designation of the slate of this special procedure mandates the holders of important milestones in the development of the Council The special procedures have been referred to as the crown jewel of the UN human rights system which has entered into the presentation of this list fully Canada hopes that Members can respect the integrity of the agreed process, in which no State shall have veto power over the candidate.But, based on the writings of one of the candidates, candidates for a mandate on the situation in occupied Palestine Occupation, Canada expressed serious concern on whether the high standards set by the Board will be fulfilled by this individual, so Canada can separate itself from the Council's decision to approve a full slate. "

Mohammad Abu-Koash, a Palestinian representative, said: "It is ironic that the Israelis who claim to represent ubiquitous Jews are campaigning against a Jewish professor nominated for the position of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in Palestine Occupation of Territories, Candidates is the author of 54 books on international law, the Palestinians doubt that those who campaign against him have read many books, the candidate nomination is a victory for good taste and human rights, because he is a qualified rapporteur If Israel is concerned about human rights it will end prolonged occupation. "

Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression

The amendment to the duties of the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, endorsed by the Human Rights Council on March 28, 2008, has led to sharp criticism from Western countries and human rights NGOs. Additional tasks are described thus:

(d) Ã, To report instances where abuse of the right to freedom of expression is an act of racial or religious discrimination, taking into account articles 19 (3) and 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 15 of the Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which stipulates that the prohibition of spreading all ideas based on racial superiority or hatred is compatible with freedom of opinion and expression

(quoted from p.Ã, 67 in the official draft board note). The amendment was proposed by Egypt and Pakistan and ratified by 27 votes up to 15 against, with three abstentions with the support of other members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, China, Russia and Cuba. As a result of the amendment of more than 20 of the 53 original co-sponsors of the main resolution - to renew the mandate of the Special Rapporteur - withdrew their support, even though the resolution was brought by 32 votes to 0, with 15 abstentions. Among other delegates from India and Canada are protesting that the Special Rapporteur now has an obligation to report not only the infringement of the right to freedom of expression, but in some cases also employ the right, which "alters the mandate of the special rapporteur above his or her head".

Outside the United Nations, the amendment was criticized by organizations including Reporters Without Borders, Censorship Index, Human Rights Watch, and Humanists International and Ethics, all of whom contend that the amendment threatens freedom of expression.

In terms of the votes ultimately awarded, this is far from the most controversial of 36 resolutions adapted by the Council's 7th session. The highest dissidents associated with combating religious defamation, with 21 votes for, 10 against, and 14 abstentions (resolution 19, pp. 91-97), and harsh condemnation and the appointment of the Special Rapporteur for North Korea, in a 22- 7 and 18 abstained (resolution 15, pp. 78-80). There are also differences of opinion for most of the reports that criticize Israel; while on the other hand a large number of resolutions were taken in a silent unanimous vote, including rather harsh criticism of Myanmar (resolutions 31 and 32), and somewhat less severe in Sudan (resolution 16).

Maps United Nations Human Rights Council

Custom issues

Israel

Overview

In 2018, Israel has been condemned in 78 resolutions by the Council since its establishment in 2006 - the Council has completed more resolutions that condemn Israel from other world affiliates. In April 2007, the Council issued eleven resolutions that cursed Israel, the only country that was specifically condemned. Going to Sudan, a country with human rights violations as documented by the Council's working group, has expressed "deep concern".

The Council voted on June 30, 2006 to make a review of Israel's alleged human rights abuses by the permanent feature of each council session. The Council's special rapporteur on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the only expert mandate that has no year of expiry. The resolution, sponsored by the Organization of the Islamic Conference, was endorsed by votes 29 to 12 with five abstentions. Human Rights Watch urged him to look at violations of human rights and international humanitarian law committed by Palestinian armed groups as well. Human Rights Watch called on the Council to avoid the selectivity that discredited its predecessor and urged him to hold special sessions on other urgent situations, such as in Darfur.

The Special Rapporteur on the issue of Palestine to the previous UNCHR, UNHRC and the current General Assembly, between 2001 and 2008, John Dugard. Bayefski quoted him as saying his mandate was to "investigate human rights violations by Israel alone, not by Palestinians". Dugard was replaced in 2008 with Richard Falk, who has compared Israel's treatment of Palestine with Nazi treatment of Jews during the Holocaust. Like its predecessor, Falk's mandate includes only Israeli human rights records. The Palestinian Authority has informally called on Falk to resign, among other reasons for viewing it as "a Hamas partisan". Falk disputes this and has called the reason given "basically not true". In July 2011, Richard Falk posted a cartoon that some critics have described as anti-Semitic to his blog. The cartoon depicts a bloodthirsty dog ​​with the word "AS" on it wearing a kippah, or Jewish head covering. In response, Falk was strongly criticized by world leaders in the United States and certain European countries. The United States called Falk's behavior "embarrassing and embarrassing" and "embarrassing for the United Nations", and officially asked him to resign. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, chairman of the US House of Representatives Committee for Foreign Affairs, asked Falk to resign as well. The Anti-Pollution League describes the cartoon as a "hate message".

The UN Human Rights Council was sentenced by Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu for facilitating an event featuring a Hamas politician. Hamas MPs have spoken at an NGO event at the UN Geneva building. Israel's UN ambassador, Ron Prosor, denounced a speech stating that Hamas is an internationally recognized terrorist organization targeting civilians. "Inviting Hamas terrorists to lecture the world on human rights is like asking Charles Manson to run a murder investigation unit on the NYPD," he said.

On 3 July 2015, UNHRC voted Resolution A/HRC/29/L.35 "ensuring accountability and fairness for all violations of international law in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, including East Jerusalem." It passed with 41 supporting votes including eight EU members seated (France, Germany, England, Ireland, Netherlands, Portugal, Latvia and Estonia), 1 against (USA) and 5 absent (India, Kenya, Ethiopia, Paraguay and Macedonia). India decided that its abstention was due to a reference to the International Criminal Court (ICC) in the interim Resolution "India is not a signatory to the Rome Statute establishing the ICC".

UN Secretary General

In 2006, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan argued that the Commission should not have "disproportionate focus on Israel's offenses, instead of Israel having to be freely granted, at least not, but the Council should give the same attention to the violations committed." by other countries too ".

On June 20, 2007, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon issued a statement saying: "The Secretary-General is disappointed at the council's decision to elect only one specific regional item given the range and scope of allegations of human rights abuses around the World."

United States and President UNHRC

The Council charter guards the right of inspectors to appoint special investigators to countries whose human rights records are of particular concern, something that many developing countries have long opposed. The Council meeting in Geneva in 2007 caused controversy after Cuba and Belarus, both accused of violations, were removed from the list of nine special mandates. The list, including North Korea, Cambodia and Sudan, has been brought forward from the dead Commission. Commenting on Cuba and Belarus, the UN statement said that Ban noted "that not having the Special Rapporteur assigned to a particular country does not relieve the country of its obligations under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights."

The United States said the day before the UN statement that the Council's deal raised serious questions about whether the new body could take sides. Alejandro Wolff, the permanent representative of the United States at the UN, accused the council of "pathological obsessions with Israel" and also condemned his actions against Cuba and Belarus. "I think the tape started talking for itself," he told reporters.

UNHRC President Doru Costea replied: "I agree with him." The Council's functions should always be improved ". He added that the Council should examine the behavior of all parties involved in a complicated dispute and not to place only one country under a magnifying glass.

Dutch

Speaking at IDC Herzliya Conference in Israel in January 2008, Dutch Foreign Minister Maxime Verhagen criticized the actions of the Human Rights Council's action against Israel. "At the United Nations, denouncing Israel has become a habit, while Hamas terror is referred to in coded or nonexistent languages.The Dutch believe the record should be straightforward, both in New York and in the Council on Human Rights in Geneva", says Verhagen.

2006 Lebanon conflict

At the Second Session of Assembly in August 2006, the Council announced the creation of a High Commission of Inquiry authorized to investigate allegations that Israel systematically targeted and killed Lebanese civilians during the 2006 Lebanon-Lebanon conflict. The resolution was adopted by a vote of 27 supporting 11 against , with 8 abstentions. Before and after the ballot several member states and NGOs objected that by targeting a resolution solely on Israel and failing to deal with Hezbollah attacks against Israeli civilians, the Council risked damaging its credibility. The members of the Commission of Inquiry, as announced on 1 September 2006, are Clemente Baena Soares of Brazil, Mohamed Chande Othman of Tanzania, and Stelios Perrakis of Greece. The Commission notes that its report on the conflict will be incomplete without fully investigating the two parties, but that "the Commission has no right, even if it wishes, to interpret [its charter] as equally endorsing an investigation of actions by Hizbullah in Israel", because the Council has explicitly forbidden it to investigate Hezbollah's actions.

Decision January 2008

The council released a statement calling on Israel to halt its military operations in the Gaza Strip and open the border of the Strip to allow entry of food, fuel and drugs. The council adopted a resolution with a vote of 30 to 1, with 15 countries not abstaining.

"Unfortunately, neither this resolution nor the current sessions discussed the roles of both sides, it is regrettable that the current draft resolution does not condemn rocket attacks against Israeli civilians," said Canadian representative Terry Cormier, the only opposing voter.

The United States and Israel boycotted the session. US Ambassador Warren Tichenor said the Board's unbalanced approach had "wasted its credibility" by failing to cope with further rocket attacks on Israel. "Today's actions do nothing to help the Palestinians, whose names supporters of this session claim to act," he said in a statement. "Supporters of the Palestinian state should avoid the kind of rhetoric and inflammatory acts represented by this session, which only trigger tension and erode chances for peace", he added. "We believe that this council should regret the fact that innocent civilians on both sides are suffering", Slovenian Ambassador Andrej Logar said on behalf of seven EU countries on the council.

At a press conference in Geneva on Wednesday, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon responded when asked about a special session in Gaza, that "I appreciate that this board looks deeply into this particular situation and that's exactly what I do. if the council will seek with the same level of attention and urgency on everything else in the world.There are still many areas where human rights are abused and not well-protected, "he said.

Gaza Report

On April 3, 2009, South African Judge Richard Goldstone was appointed as head of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission to investigate international human rights and human rights violations related to the Gaza War. This mission was formed by Resolution S-9/1 of the United Nations Human Rights Council.

On September 15, 2009, the UN Fact Finding Mission released its report. The report found that there is evidence "to show serious violations of international human rights and humanitarian law committed by Israel during the Gaza conflict, and that Israel commits acts amounting to war crimes, and possibly crimes against humanity". The mission also found that there is evidence that "Palestinian armed groups committed war crimes, as well as possible crimes against humanity, in rocket and mortar launches into southern Israel." The mission called for referring both sides in the conflict to the UN Security Council for prosecution at the International Criminal Court if they refused to initiate an independent investigation fully in December 2009.

Goldstone has since withdrawn some of the report's conclusions that Israel committed war crimes, as new evidence has clarified the decision-making by the Israeli commander. He said, "I regret that our fact-finding mission has no evidence to explain the circumstances in which we say civilians in Gaza are targeted, as it may affect our findings on intentionality and war crimes."

Goldstone acknowledges that Israel has "to a significant extent" implemented a report recommend that "each side to investigate [incidents] in a transparent and in good faith," but "Hamas does nothing." The Palestinian Authority has also implemented a report recommendation by investigating "the killings, torture and illegal detention, committed by Fatah in the West Bank", but Goldstone notes that "most of the allegations are confirmed by this investigation".

controversy March 2011

At UNHRC's opening session in February 2011, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton criticized the council's "structural bias" against the State of Israel: "Structural bias against Israel - including an agenda item standing for Israel, while all other countries are treated under public goods - it's wrong And that undermines the important work we're trying to do together. "

An editorial in the Jerusalem Post later revealed that UNHRC "is ready to adopt six resolutions... condemning Israel," noting that it was the highest number of resolutions ever adopted against Israel in a trial. Human rights activist and Hudson Institute senior colleague Anne Bayefsky accused UNHRC of failing to remove the antisemitism propaganda distributed by IHH during one of the sessions. The material in question is an illustration depicting Israel as a frightening Nazi octopus mastering the ship.

Chairman of the US Foreign Affairs Committee, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R) said he would propose legislation that makes US funding for the UN contingent on massive reforms. The law will also ask the United States to withdraw from UNHRC, because "Israel is the only state on the permanent agenda of the council, while abuses by rogue regimes like Cuba, China and Syria are ignored".

Hosting controversy of Hamas members

In March 2012, the United Nations Human Rights Council was criticized for facilitating an event featuring a Hamas politician. Hamas MPs have spoken at an NGO event at the UN Geneva building. Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu condemned the UNHRC decision stating, "He represents an organization that indiscriminately targets children and adults, and women and men, innocent people - are their favorite special targets". Israel's UN ambassador Ron Prosor denounced a speech stating that Hamas is an internationally recognized terrorist organization targeting civilians. "Inviting Hamas terrorists to lecture the world on human rights is like asking Charles Manson to run a murder investigation unit on the NYPD," he said.

March 2012 critic

The United States urges the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva to stop anti-Israeli bias. Especially the exception to Agenda Item 7 on the board, where at each session, Israel's human rights record is debated. No other country has a custom agenda item. US Ambassador to UNHRC Eileen Chamberlain Donahoe said that the United States was deeply troubled by "the biased and disproportionate Council's focus on Israel." He said that hypocrisy was increasingly open in the Golan Heights resolution advocated by the Syrian regime at the time when killing its own citizens.

"Defamation of religion"

From 1999 to 2011, CHR and UNHRC adopted a resolution contrary to "religious slander".

Climate change

The Human Rights Council has adopted Resolution 10/4 on human rights and climate change.

Eritrea reported

In June 2015, a 500-page UNHRC report accused the Eritrean government of widespread human rights abuses.

This allegedly includes extrajudicial, torture, indefinite executions of national service and forced labor, and the report also shows that sexual harassment, rape and sexual slavery by state officials are widespread. The Guardian claims that the report was' a catalog of litany of human rights abuses by the "totalitarian" regime of President Isaias Afwerki "on scope and scale rarely seen elsewhere". The report also confirms that this serial offense may be a crime against humanity.

The Eritrean Foreign Ministry responded by describing the Commission's report as a "wild accusation" that was "totally unfounded and lacked all services" and accused UNHRC of "vile abuse and false allegations".

The deputy head of the human rights subcommittee in the European parliament said the report details 'very serious human rights abuses', and said that EU funding for development would not continue like today without change in Eritrea.

src: 20cxh614hon119kmcx49v25h-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com

Candidate issue

Syria

In July 2012, Syria announced it would seek UNHRC seats. This is when there is serious evidence (provided by many human rights organizations including the UN itself) that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has authorized and funded the massacre of thousands of civilians, with an estimated 14,000 civilians killed in July 2012 during the Syrian civil war. According to UN Watch, Syria's candidacy is virtually guaranteed under the prevailing electoral system. Syria will be responsible for promoting human rights if elected. In response, the United States and the European Union drew up a resolution to oppose the move. Ultimately, Syria does not exist in a vote for the 12 November 2012 election for UNHRC.

Sudan and Ethiopia

In July 2012, it was reported that Sudan and Ethiopia were nominated for UNHRC seats, albeit accused by human rights organizations of gross human rights violations. UN Watch condemned the move to nominate Sudan, suggesting that Sudanese President Omar Al-Bashir was charged with genocide by the International Criminal Court. According to UN Watch, Sudan really sure got a seat. A joint letter of 18 African and international civil society organizations urged African Union foreign ministers to reverse its support of Ethiopia and Sudan to sit down, accusing them of serious human rights abuses and listing examples of such violations, stating that they should not be rewarded with seats. Sudan is not in a vote for the 12 November 2012 election for UNHRC, but Ethiopia was elected.

Saudi Arabia

In September 2015, Faisal bin Hassan Trad, the Saudi ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva, was elected as Chair of the UNHRC Advisory Committee, a panel appointing independent experts. UN Watch chief executive Hillel Neuer said: "It is embarrassing that the United Nations chose a country that has beheaded more people this year [2015] than ISIS to head the main human rights panel." Petro-dollars and politics have deceived human rights. " The Saudis also dismissed criticism, during a UN meeting. In January 2016, Saudi Arabia executed the famous Shiite cleric Sheikh Nimr who called for free elections in Saudi Arabia.

In September 2017, US President Donald Trump said that "it is" shameful "that there are states in the UN human rights panel that have committed atrocities, but does not name specific countries.

src: hungarytoday.hu

Country position

United States Position

In connection with the United Nations Human Rights Council, the position of the United States is: "Human rights have been the basis of American values ​​since the birth of the country and the United States is committed to supporting the work of the UN Commission in promoting the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Rights US President George W. Bush's assertion states that the United States will not seek a seat on the Board, saying it will be more effective from the outside, but he promised to support the Council financially Foreign Ministry Spokesman Sean McCormack said, "We will work with partners in the international community to encourage councils to deal with serious cases of human rights abuses in countries such as Iran, Cuba, Zimbabwe, Burma, Sudan and North Korea ".

The US State Department said on 5 March 2007 that, for the second year in a row, the United States has decided not to seek seats in the Human Rights Council, insisting that the agency has lost its credibility with repeated attacks on Israel and the failure to face perpetrators other human rights. Spokesman Sean McCormack said the council already has a "single focus" on Israel, while countries like Cuba, Myanmar and North Korea have escaped scrutiny. He said that although the United States will only have an observer role, it will continue to highlight issues of human rights. The most senior member of the Republic of the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, supports administrative decisions. "Instead of standing as a strong fundamental human rights advocate, the Human Rights Council has faltered as a weak voice that is subject to dirty political manipulation," he said.

Following part of the UNHRC institutional development package in June 2007, the United States reiterated its criticism of the bias on the institute's agenda. Spokesman Sean McCormack once again criticized the Commission for focusing on Israel in light of many more urgent human rights issues around the world, such as Sudan or Myanmar, and continuing to criticize the suspension of the Special Rapporteur on Cuba and Belarus, as well as procedural irregularities. which prevents Member States from choosing issues; Similar criticisms were issued by Canadian representatives. In September 2007, the US Senate decided to cut funding to the council.

The United States joins Australia, Canada, Israel and three other countries in opposing UNHRC's draft resolution on work rules that cite continued false focus on Israel at the expense of acts against countries with poor human rights records. The resolution passed 154-7 in a rare vote by Israel including support from France, Britain and China, although it is usually approved by consensus. The United States Ambassador to the United Nations, Zalmay Khalilzad, spoke of "the one-year non-stop council focus on one country - Israel," in contrast to failure "to tackle serious human rights abuses in other countries such as Zimbabwe, North Korea), Iran, Belarus and Cuba. "Khalilzad said that apart from criticism of Burmese anti-government protests, last year the council was" very bad "and" failed to meet our expectations. "

On June 6, 2008, the Tribune Human Rights announced that the United States has been completely withdrawn from UNHRC, and has attracted its observer status.

The United States boycotted the Council during the George W. Bush administration, but reversed its position during the Obama administration. However, beginning in 2009, with the United States taking a leading role in the organization, American commentators began to argue that UNHRC became increasingly relevant.

On March 31, 2009, the Barack Obama administration announced that it would reverse the country's previous position and would join UNHRC; New Zealand has indicated its willingness not to seek elections to the council to make room for the United States to walk without a fight along with Belgium and Norway for the WEOG chair.

On June 19, 2018, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley announced that the United States, under President Donald Trump, withdrew from the United Nations Human Rights Council, accused the council of "hypocritical and self-serving "When the Human Rights Council treats Israel worse than North Korea, Iran, and Syria, it is the Council itself that is stupid and unworthy of its name. for countries that know better to demand change, "Haley said in a statement at the time, pointing to the adoption of the council of five resolutions condemning Israel. "The United States continues to evaluate our membership in the Human Rights Council." Our patience is endless. "

Sri Lankan Position

Sri Lanka has been under increasing scrutiny with a draft resolution put forward by the United States on reconciliation and accountability in Sri Lanka.

The draft resolution, which is being reviewed, notes, "with concern that the LLRC report does not adequately respond to serious allegations of violations of international law, 1. Call upon the Government of Sri Lanka to implement constructive recommendations in the LLRC report and take all necessary additional steps to fulfill its legal obligations and its relevant commitments to initiate credible and independent action to ensure fairness, equity, accountability and reconciliation for all Sri Lankan citizens, 2. Request that the Government of Sri Lanka present a comprehensive action plan as soon as possible detail the steps it has taken and will taken by the Government to implement LLRC recommendations and also to deal with alleged violations of international law, 3. Encourage the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and relevant relevant procedures to be provided, and the Government of Sri Lanka to receive, advice and technical assistance to Implement these steps and ask O Ffice of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to present a report to the Council on the provision of such assistance in a twenty-second session. "

The Sri Lankan Ambassador in Geneva Tamara Kunanayakam pointed out that 80% of the UNHRC funding requirements are supplied by powerful countries such as the United States and its allies. Also, key positions in UNHCR are mostly held by those who have served in the foreign service of those countries. The position of Sri Lanka is that this fact significantly harms the impartiality of UNHRC activities, especially when dealing with the developing world. As a result, Sri Lanka, together with Cuba and Pakistan, sponsored a resolution seeking transparency in funding and UNHRC staff, during the 19th session that began in February 2012. The resolution was adopted on 4 April 2012.

src: i46.tinypic.com

Criticism

The United States boycotted UNHRC during the George W. Bush administration to protest against repressive states among its members, but in March 2009 the Obama administration reversed the position and decided to "re-engage" and seek seats at UNHRC. However, beginning in 2009, with the United States taking a leading role in the organization, American commentators began to argue that UNHRC became increasingly relevant.

UNHRC has been criticized for its repressive states among its members. Countries with questionable human rights records that have served in UNHRC include Cuba, Saudi Arabia, China and Russia.

Agenda Item 7

UNHRC has been accused of anti-Israeli bias, a particular criticism being its focus on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in each session as Agenda Item 7. The Council voted on June 30, 2006 to make a review of alleged human rights abuses by Israel. Permanent feature of each board session:

Figure 7. The situation of human rights in Palestine and other occupied Arabian territories

• Human rights abuses and the implications of the Israeli occupation of Palestine and other occupied Arabian territories
• The right to self-determination of the Palestinian people

None of the other nine items relate exclusively to a particular conflict. The Council's special rapporteur on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the only mandate of the council that has no year of expiry. The Rapporteur between 2008 and 2014, Richard A. Falk, has been accused of antisemitism.

UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan and Ban Ki-moon, former councilors Doru Costea, the European Union, Canada and the United States accused UNHRC of focusing disproportionately on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Boris Johnson, Foreign Secretary of the United Kingdom on June 18, 2018 said: "We share the view that a special agenda focusing only on Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories is disproportionate and undermines the cause of peace."

On June 19, 2018, the United States withdrew from UNHRC accusing the agency of bias against Israel and the failure to hold responsible human rights offenders.

Selecting Bloc

A Reuters report in 2008 said that independent human rights groups say that UNHRC is being controlled by several Middle Eastern and African countries, supported by China, Russia and Cuba, which protect each other from criticism. It drew criticism from UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on the ineffectiveness of UNHRC, saying they had failed to fulfill their obligations. He urged countries to "bring down rhetoric" and rise up "partisan attitudes and regional divisions" and continue to defend people around the world. This has followed criticism since UNHRC was founded, where Israel has been condemned on many occasions and other incidents in the world such as Darfur, Tibet, North Korea, and Zimbabwe have not been discussed on the council.

Ban Ki-Moon also called for the United States to fully join the council and play a more active role.

UNHRC was criticized in 2009 for adopting a resolution put forward by Sri Lanka praising its actions in Vanni that year, ignoring requests for an international war crimes investigation.

Overcome CHR critic

On June 18, 2007, one year after the first meeting, UNHRC adopted its institutional development package to guide in its future work. Among its elements is the Universal Periodic Review, which assesses the situation of human rights in all 193 Member States of the United Nations. Another element is the Advisory Committee , which functions as a UNHRC think tank and provides it with expertise and advice on thematic human rights issues. A further element is the Complaint Procedure , which allows individuals and organizations to file complaints about human rights violations to the Council's attention.

In the election of members, the General Assembly considers the contributions of each candidate candidate for the promotion and protection of human rights, as well as their voluntary pledges and commitments in this regard. The General Assembly, with a two-thirds majority, may suspend the rights and privileges of any Council member which he decides has committed a gross and systematic violation of human rights during his term of membership. The UNHRC resolution states that "members elected in the Council will uphold the highest standards of promotion and protection of human rights".

src: img8.irna.ir

See also

• OIC Ã,§ Human rights
• Community Democracies
• Human rights in cyberspace
• The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights
• UN Watch
• Vienna Declaration and Action Program

src: foreignpolicymag.files.wordpress.com

Note

src: www.newsfirst.lk

References

Source of the article : Wikipedia