Foreign Policy October 2010 at BROOKINGS Catalysts for R ights:
The Unique Contribution of the UN’s on Human Rights Independent Experts
Catalysts for Rights: The Unique Contribution of the UN’s Independent Experts on Human Rights
Ted Piccone Ted Piccone
BROOKINGS 1775 Massachusetts Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20036 www.brookings.edu Foreign Policy October 2010 at BROOKINGS
Catalysts for Rights The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights
Final Report of the Brookings Research Project on Strengthening U.N. Special Procedures
Ted Piccone
The views expressed in this report do not reflect an official position of The Brookings Institution, its Board, or Advisory Council members. © 2010 The Brookings Institution TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements ...... iii Members of Experts Advisory Group ...... v List of Abbreviations ...... vi Executive Summary ...... viii Introduction ...... 1. Context ...... 2 Methodology ...... 3. A Short Summary of Special Procedures ...... 5 Summary of Findings ...... 9 Country Visits ...... 9 Follow-Up to Country Visits ...... 19 Communications ...... 20 Resources ...... 31 Joint Activities and Coordination ...... 32. Code of Conduct ...... 34. Training ...... 34. Universal Periodic Review ...... 35. Relationship with Treaty Bodies ...... 36 Recommendations ...... 38 Appointments ...... 38. Country Visits and Communications ...... 38. Follow-Up Procedures ...... 40 Resources ...... 41 Training ...... 41.. Code of Conduct ...... 42. Relationship with UPR, Treaty Bodies, and other U.N. Actors ...... 42 Appendices Appendix A HRC Resolution 5/1, the Institution Building Package ...... 44 Appendix B HRC Resolution 5/2, the Code of Conduct ...... 48 Appendix C Special Procedures of the HRC - Mandate Holders (as of 1 August 2010) ...... 55 Appendix D Human Rights Council Membership (2006-2010) ...... 59 Appendix E Examples of how SP Visits and Communications Affect National Action ...... 61 Appendix F State Responses to Communications (2004-2008) ...... 69 Appendix G Status of Country Visits (as of June 2010) ...... 71 Appendix H Project Methodology on Scoring Communications ...... 75 Appendix I List of Interviews ...... 78 Appendix J February 2010 Statement of Experts and Advocates ...... 84
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
hen I arrived at The Brookings Institution community is, as then U.N. High Commissioner in April 2008 after running a small non- for Human Rights Louise Arbour declared, im- Wprofit organization devoted to research plementation, implementation, implementation. and advocacy on democracy and human rights, While new human rights norms may need to be I was struck immediately by the freedom I had developed in some areas, the bulk of the main hu- to develop my own research agenda. One of the man rights principles, protocols and procedures lingering questions that deserved more time and have already been conceptualized and codified analysis, in my view, was how the United Nations in treaties that have been signed and ratified by human rights system works and how it could be most governments. The real challenge is how improved. I was particularly interested in the the international system created since the end of work of the U.N.’s independent experts on hu- World War II can be more effective in influenc- man rights (known in U.N. parlance as the Spe- ing states to promote and protect human rights cial Procedures) who had drawn so much praise for all. Third, given the intensity of the debate and a fair amount of criticism for their activities. around creation of the Council, and knowing This issue had attracted more attention than usual that its work would be reviewed after five years in the context of the negotiations in 2005-06 to (2011), I felt there was an opportunity to contrib- abolish the Commission on Human Rights and ute something meaningful to the discussion. to create a new and more elevated Human Rights Council. Exasperation bordering on outright hos- I am grateful to so many people who helped make tility toward both the Commission and the Coun- this project a reality. Brookings President Strobe cil from the Bush Administration and other gov- Talbott has been a steady and stalwart supporter ernments only heightened my interest in examin- of the idea of doing more public policy research ing in more depth the tricky intersection between on questions of human rights, humanitarian af- universal norms and practical implementation of fairs and foreign policy. He, along with Martin In- such norms at the country level. dyk, Vice President and Director of Foreign Policy at Brookings, and his predecessor Carlos Pascual, I was drawn to this issue for several reasons. now U.S. Ambassador to Mexico, played an es- First, I knew from my own experience and fur- sential leadership role in backing this effort. Bruce ther research that sound, empirical studies of the Jones, who directs the Managing Global Insecu- role of the Special Procedures and the effective- rity project where I sit, challenged me early on to ness of this mechanism on the ground had never tackle the effectiveness question. Ongoing support been published. Second, I was convinced that the from the Foreign Policy team, especially Char- main challenge to the international human rights lotte Baldwin, Julia Cates, Adrienne Anzanello,
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights iii Margaret Humenay, Gail Chalef, Kristina Server listed on page vii, I benefited greatly from the ex- and Jacqueline Geis, was essential for keeping the pertise and feedback of Nigel Rodley, Felice Gaer, project on track. Tania Baldwin, Elizabeth Ferris, Julia de Rivero, Philippe Dam, Dokhi Fassihian and Gay McDou- No intensive research project like this could hap- gall. From the Office of the High Commissioner pen without the vision and financial support of for Human Rights, I want to extend special thanks our donors. I am especially grateful to the Em- to Deputy High Commissioner Kyung-wha Kang, bassy of the Netherlands in Washington, led by a Charles Radcliffe, Craig Mokhiber, Heike Alefsen, real human rights leader in the diplomatic com- Eric Tistounet, Bacre Ndiaye, Orest Nowosad and munity, Ambassador Renee Jones-Bos, and Po- Gunnar Theissen, as well as Will Davis from the litical Counselor Robert Dresen for their early U.N. Information Center in Washington. and enthusiastic endorsement, as well as Maryem van den Heuvel, Edwin Keyzer and Peter Potman In order to do an objective evaluation of how gov- in the Hague. The Foreign Ministry of the Swiss ernments respond to the Special Procedures, we Confederation, with the support of Ralf Heckner had to analyze the public written record, which and Mirko Giulietti, provided timely financial as- is voluminous. To make sense of it, I had the in- sistance, as did the United Nations Foundation valuable assistance of my stellar Senior Research Better World Campaign thanks to Susan Myers Assistant, Emily Alinikoff. On this and so many and Peter Yeo. Support from the Connect U.S. other details from a to z, Emily made things hap- Fund was vital to our convening experts and hu- pen, brought new ideas, created new ways of ana- man rights defenders from around the world for lyzing and organizing data, organized multiple two days of meetings in Washington in February trips and interviews, and trained and coordinated 2010. I especially appreciate the guidance of Eric a fantastic group of top notch graduate and un- Schwartz, Nancy Soderberg, Heather Hamilton, dergraduate students. I am especially grateful to and Francesco Femia, along with Karin Ryan of Nicholas Marwell, who helped me conceptualize The Carter Center. the project, and Christopher Le Mon, who did excellent work on methodology. In addition, I I was very fortunate in carrying out the project want to thank Pooja Kadakia, Matthew Perault, to have the guidance and advice of an outstand- Patrick Griffith, Shubra Ohri, Anna Sims, Sayo ing Experts Advisory Group of practitioners, Saruta, Mila Cecerina, Bora Park, Anna Fox, and academics, lawyers, and activists who helped me Shannon Dobson for doing the yeoman’s work of work through the conceptual framing, method- analyzing scores of reports and communications. ology, and factual details of the report and ulti- mately to endorse its recommendations. I can’t Finally, I want to thank my dear wife, Susan thank them enough for their active participation Gibbs, and our three wonderful children for en- in our meetings and online and always friendly during my long hours away from home. and constructive input. In addition to this group
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights iv MEMBERS OF EXPERTS WORKING GROUP Brookings Research Project on Strengthening U.N. Special Procedures
Roberta Cohen, nonresident Senior Fellow, the mission on Human Right, former Special Rappor- Brookings Institution and Senior Advisor to the teur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, Special Representative of the Secretary General on former Special Rapporteur on the situation of hu- the human rights of internally displaced persons man rights in Burundi
Morton Halperin, Senior Advisor, Open Society Bertrand Ramcharan, Professor of International Institute and Open Society Policy Center Human Rights Law at the Geneva Graduate Insti- tute of International Studies, former acting U.N. Peggy Hicks, Global Advocacy Director, Human High Commissioner for Human Rights Rights Watch Andrea Rossi, Director of the Measurement and Hina Jilani, Advocate of the Supreme Court of Human Rights Program, Carr Center for Human Pakistan, former Special Representative of the Rights Policy, Harvard University Secretary General for human rights defenders Nancy Rubin, former U.S. Representative to the Miloon Kothari, former Special Rapporteur on U.N. Commission for Human Rights adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living Thomas Weiss, Presidential Professor of Political Science at the CUNY Graduate Center and Di- Juan E. Mendez, Visiting Professor of Law at rector, Ralph Bunche Institute for International American University, former United Nations Studies Special Advisor to the Secretary General on the prevention of genocide David Weissbrodt, Regents Professor and Fredrik- son & Byron Professor of Law, University of Min- Michael O’Flaherty, Professor of Applied Hu- nesota, former U.N. Special Rapporteur on the man Rights and Co-director of the Human Rights rights of non-citizens Law Centre at the University of Nottingham, Member of the U.N. Human Rights Committee Rich Williamson, nonresident Senior Fellow, the Brookings Institution, former U.S. Special Envoy Paulo Sergio Pinheiro, Commissioner and Rap- to Sudan porteur on Children in the Inter-American Com-
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights v LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Mandates:
ED Special Rapporteur on the right to education FRDX Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion or expression HLTH Special Rapporteur on the right to everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health HOUSE Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living, and on the right to non-discrimination in this context HRD Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders IDP Special Rapporteur on the human rights of internally displaced persons IJL Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers IND Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people MIG Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants RACE Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance RINT Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief SALE Special Rapporteur on the sale of children, child prostitution and child SUMX Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions TOR Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment TOX Special Rapporteur on the adverse effects of the movement and dumping of toxic and dangerous products and wastes on the enjoyment of human rights TRAF Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons, especially in women and children VAW Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences WGAD Working Group on Arbitrary Detention WGEID Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights vi Other:
AL Allegation Letter CAT Committee against Torture CD Community of Democracies CEDAW Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women EEG Eastern Europe Group GRULAC Latin America and Caribbean Group HCHR High Commissioner for Human Rights HRC Human Rights Council ICCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights JAL Joint Allegation Letter JUA Joint Urgent Appeal NGO Nongovernmental Organization NHRI National Human Rights Institution NSI No Standing Invitation OHCHR Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights OIC Organization of Islamic Conference QRD Quick Response Desk SI Standing Invitation SP Special Procedures SPB Special Procedures Branch SPD Special Procedures Division SRSG Special Representative of the Secretary General UA Urgent Appeal UN United Nations UNDP United Nations Development Program UNGA United Nations General Assembly UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees UPR Universal Periodic Review WEOGWestern Europe and Others Group WG Working Group
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights vii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ne of the great questions of international The report comes at a time when the main forum affairs is how to promote respect for universal states have established to negotiate these ques- Oprinciples of human rights in a world where tions, the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva, sovereign states can be persuaded but rarely continues to face intense scrutiny. For a variety of compelled to do the right thing. Over decades, the reasons, most notably the high political sensitiv- international community has constructed a house ity of human rights, the Human Rights Council with a strong foundation of universal norms that has become a battleground for defending a state’s place the individual’s right to human dignity at the reputation at home and abroad. This report does center. To give meaning to this concept, states have not seek to evaluate all the pros and cons sur- adopted treaties that define the scope and content rounding the body as it comes upon its five-year of a wide variety of political, civil, economic, social evaluation. It does aim, however, to evaluate an and group rights. They have agreed to regulate important element of the Council’s work in the and limit the state’s power to infringe those rights. hopes it will contribute to a more objective and And they have forged a variety of tools to monitor balanced assessment in the United States and how states implement their obligations, and to around the world of what works when it comes to assist, cajole and demand protection of such rights promoting human rights. in real time. Building this house was one of the great accomplishments of the second half of the Findings 20th century. After months of research, interviews and field A critical human rights challenge of this century visits, and with the benefit of input from a group is to ensure that the house functions effectively of expert advisors, the report draws a compelling to shelter those individuals who need protec- portrait of this unique mechanism. Among its tion from discrimination, abuse and violence. To conclusions, the report finds: do this, we need to ask and answer a seemingly simple question: What works when it comes to in- . The U.N.’s independent experts on hu- ternational promotion and protection of human man rights are catalysts for rights, helping rights at the national level? This report seeks to to convert abstract principles into mean- answer that question as it relates to one piece of ingful change. Thanks to their status as in- the United Nations human rights system: the in- dependent experts mandated by the Unit- dependent experts mandated by governments to ed Nations, most Special Procedures have report on how states respect human rights in fact, played, and continue to play, a critical role otherwise known as the “Special Procedures.” in shaping the content of international
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights viii human rights norms, shedding light on . Country visits have had the effect of influ- how states comply with such norms, and encing government behavior in a variety of influencing how governments behave, to positive ways: the benefit of millions of people. better treatment and release of political . Lack of state cooperation with Special Pro- prisoners and journalists cedures represents the chief obstacle to their new laws and policies to protect migrants work. Failure to accept requests to visit, to and internally displaced persons respond to allegations and to follow up on dismissals and prosecutions of military their recommendations as well as hostile at- and police officials charged with abuses tacks on their work are the most glaring and monitoring prisons to prevent torture widespread areas needing attention. expanding access to health education and services . The Special Procedures are also hobbled by adopt ing legislation to address domes- a host of other challenges, including inad- tic violence against women and children equate resources and training, insufficient including victim and witness protection understanding of the local context for their measures, and work, and the lack of a systematic process protecting freedom of expression through for following up their recommendations. decriminalizing defamation.
. The key factors that facilitate positive state . Despite these obstacles, the Special Pro- action in response to a country visit are: cedures mechanism represents one of the most effective tools of the international The credibility and moral power of the human rights system and deserves further United Nations strengthening and support from the inter- The timing of the visit at it relates to a national community. country’s political development The quality and specificity of the expert’s . Country visits were seen as the most effec- research and recommendations tive tool for influence in the independent The willingness and capacity of the gov- experts’ toolbox. The blue U.N. flag they ernment to cooperate with the expert carry on mission when combined with The bilitya of local NGOs to articulate well-prepared and politically skillful judg- their grievances in a timely and effective ments have a direct impact on elevating at- way and to do follow-up advocacy tention to important and sensitive human The freedom and capacity of the media rights problems by government officials, to report on the visit and track results nongovernmental organizations, the media The ability of U.N. staff to support the and politicians. independent experts through prepara- tion and follow-up activities. . Country visits are especially important for human rights defenders to help them mo- . Written communications from Special Pro- bilize advocacy, involve victims, call atten- cedures transmitting allegations of human tion to problems and remedies, and influ- rights problems to governments have some ence state and international behavior on limited impact on influencing state behav- human rights. ior but in general are ineffective.
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights ix . Analysis of nearly 9,000 communications . A public record of how states cooperate sent over a five-year period by 17 mandates with the independent experts, including a to 174 states shows that 58% received no database on all communications, should or immaterial responses by governments. be produced on an ongoing basis. States In 18% of responses, governments took should rely on this record of cooperation steps to address the underlying allegation when electing members to the Human in some way, while 21% showed rejection Rights Council and in making decisions of the allegation with no evidence of an in- on resource allocation and technical assis- vestigation of the underlying claim. tance to states.
. On balance, states in Europe and the Amer- . Special Procedures should improve their icas had better scores on responding to al- working methods by investing more time legations than states in Africa and Asia. to preparation of country visits, more bal- Similarly, states considered democratic had anced presentation of their findings, more a significantly higher positive response rate specific and actionable recommendations, and a lower rate of non-replies than non- and more careful selection of which states democracies. to visit. . The impact of country visits and commu- . A number of follow-up steps are needed nications is negatively affected by the lack to strengthen the impact of the mechanism of any institutionalized mechanism for fol- such as: regular submission of progress re- lowing up on an independent expert’s rec- ports by states, better coordination among ommendations. Special Procedures and their staffs, peri- Recommendations odic follow-up visits, incorporation of rec- ommendations in U.N. country team work plans, and greater monitoring and report- Based on these and related findings, and with the ing by civil society and the media. endorsement of the project’s Experts Advisory Group, the report makes the following recom- . Given the quantity and quality of the Spe- mendations for strengthening the Special Proce- dures mechanism: cial Procedures’ work in translating uni- versal norms into improved state practice, . The selection process for independent ex- states and the U.N. system should increase perts, while improved, would benefit from a resources for them, continue to reduce ear- wider variety of qualified candidates and less marking, and direct funding to support political interference from member states. implementation of the experts’ recommen- dations. . States should fulfill their obligations to co- operate with Special Procedures by issuing . To support further professionalization and standing invitations, responding quickly to greater effectiveness, new and improved requests for visits, accepting the standard training of Special Procedures is necessary, terms of reference for such visits and re- particularly training by former mandate sponding to all communications in a time- holders and development of diplomatic ly and substantive manner. and communication skills.
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights x . States must refrain from abusing the Spe- . The U.N. system should do much more to cial Procedures Code of Conduct to harass integrate the work of the Special Proce- independent experts and criticize such be- dures into their activities, programs and havior when it does occur. Complaints of work plans and find ways to connect their inappropriate conduct should be directed to recommendations to funding priorities. the Special Procedures Coordination Com- mittee which should keep the Council in- formed of steps taken to address allegations.
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights xi INTRODUCTION
n June 2009, a team of researchers at the They operate as critical nodes in a larger system Brookings Institution’s Foreign Policy Program composed of treaty bodies, political resolutions, Iundertook a research project on a cornerstone the High Commissioner for Human Rights, tech- of the United Nations human rights system: nical assistance, and field offices, connecting to the U.N. Special Procedures. The term “Special each part in different and unique ways. They serve Procedures” refers to the special rapporteurs, as the main entry point into this system for vic- special representatives, independent experts and tims and human rights defenders in every corner working groups mandated by the U.N.’s political of the world, offering a practical forum for the bodies to monitor and report on human rights promotion and protection of human rights. By violations and to recommend ways to promote most accounts, they have played a critical role in and protect human rights.1 U.N. member states shaping the content of international human rights created these mechanisms over thirty years ago to norms, shedding light on how states comply with serve as independent eyes and ears evaluating the such norms, and advancing measures to improve application of international human rights norms respect for them. They are considered by many to to concrete situations. be, in the words of then U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, “the crown jewel of the system.”2 The Special Procedures carry out this function by undertaking fact-finding missions to countries of Despite their well-deserved place in the interna- concern; issuing communications, including ur- tional human rights architecture, there exists no gent appeals, to governments and requesting cor- comprehensive public study of the contribution rective action; calling public attention to specific these key mechanisms have made to implemen- violations; elaborating on human rights norms; tation of international human rights standards and providing periodic reports to the Human at the national level, leaving a gaping hole in the Rights Council (HRC) and General Assembly. human rights and foreign policy scholarship that
1 Under criteria established by the Human Rights Council in 2007, these experts are selected based on their expertise, experience in the field of human rights, independence, impartiality, personal integrity and objectivity. Human Rights Council Resolution 5/1, Section II. A, 18 June 2007. Currently there are 31 thematic mandates and 8 country-specific mandates. 2 “The Special Procedures are the crown jewel of the system. They, together with the High Commissioner and her staff, provide the independent expertise and judgment which is essential to effective human rights protection. They must not be politicized, or subjected to governmental control.” U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, Speech at the Time Warner Center, New York, 8 December 2006, available at
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights 1 impoverishes debate on the value of the U.N.’s hu- human rights records to be defeated (e.g., Iran, man rights system.3 This debate has intensified Sri Lanka, Azerbaijan and Belarus), although with the creation of the Human Rights Council in others with similar records continue to be elected 2006 and continues as member states take up the (e.g., Cuba, China, Saudi Arabia and Egypt). The five-year review of the Council in 2010-11. Council retained the Commission’s ability to ad- dress country-specific situations, and lowered the The purpose of this report is to assess what role bar to convene special sessions to examine urgent the Special Procedures mechanism plays in pro- cases. But some member states, particularly those moting human rights at the national level and to with worse human rights records, continue to op- recommend steps for strengthening them. pose strongly the principle of country scrutiny while simultaneously supporting certain long- Context standing exceptions like Israel, which is subject to an open-ended mandate on the Occupied Pal- Over the last several years, U.N. member states estinian Territories and often biased treatment. and human rights experts have engaged in in- In light of this mixed picture, doubts continue to tense and acrimonious debate over the purpose be expressed in the United States and internation- and credibility of the international human rights ally about whether this new arrangement is able system. This debate, catalyzed by then U.N. Secre- to have a meaningful impact on respect for inter- tary General Kofi Annan’s drive for U.N. reform, national human rights. ultimately led to the establishment in 2006 of a new Human Rights Council to replace the Com- One important objective of this study is to put this mission on Human Rights. Key features of the debate in the United States and abroad on firmer old Commission, like the independence of the empirical ground by examining the effectiveness Special Procedures and of the Office of the High of one of the system’s most important and prolific Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), mechanisms. It is hoped the results will enable were preserved, resources to deploy human rights policymakers to make more informed decisions monitors to the field were expanded, and a new concerning the costs and benefits of policy deci- universal peer review mechanism to evaluate sions that affect the U.N.’s human rights regime. each country’s human rights record was created. In this regard, the timing of the report is useful. A process encouraging competitive elections for The U.N. General Assembly, when it created the seats on the Council was established, allowing, Council, agreed to review its mandate at the five- for the first time, for certain candidates with bad year mark in 2011, a process that formally gets
3 A number of other experts have published studies illustrating how the system works and analyzing its working methods. Among the sources consulted in preparation of this study are: Bertrand G. Ramcharan, The Protection Roles of U.N. Human Rights Special Procedures, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Boston, 2008; Paulo Sérgio Pinheiro, “Musings of a U.N. Special Rapporteur on Human Rights,” in Global Governance, 2003, pp 7-13; Ingrid Nifosi, The U.N. Special Procedures in the Field of Human Rights, Gaunt, Holmes Beach, 2005; Jeroen Gutter, Thematic Procedures of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and International Law: in Search of a Sense of Community, Intersentia, Utrecht, 2006; Miko Lempinen, Challenges Facing the System of Special Procedures of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, Abo Akademi University Institute for Human Rights, Turku/Åbo, 2001; Theo van Boven, “Urgent Appeals on Behalf of Torture Victims,” Libertés, justice, tolérance: mélanges en hommage au doyen, Gérard Cohen-Jonathan (eds), Bruylant Brussels, 2004; Elvira Domínguez, Los Procedimientos Públicos Especiales De La Comisión De Derechos Humanos De Naciones Unidas, Tirant lo Blanch,Valencia, 2005; Markus Schmidt, “Follow-up Activities by U.N. Human Rights Treaty Bodies and Special Procedures Mechanisms of the Human Rights Council – Recent Developments,” in International Human Rights Monitoring Mechanisms: Essays in Honour of Jakob Th. Möller, 2nd Revised Edition, Gudmundur Alfredsson, Jonas Grimheden, Bertrand G. Ramcharan, and Alfred de Zayas (eds), Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Boston, 2009; Lyal S. Sunga, “What Effect If Any Will the U.N. Human Rights Council Have on Special Procedures?” in International Human Rights Monitoring Mechanisms: Essays in Honour of Jakob Möller, 2nd Revised Edition; Paul Hunt, “The U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Right to Health: Key Objectives, Themes, and Interventions,” in Health and Human Rights, Vol. 7, No. 1, 2003, pp. 1-27.
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights 2 underway on October 25, 2010. Furthermore, the government replies to a set of 19 thematic man- Obama Administration faces ongoing challenges date holders’ communications over a five-year about how best to reengage after a period of ab- period (2004-2008).5 This part of the research stention from the Council adopted by the Bush process involved categorizing state replies to Administration. Disappointments, such as a con- thousands of allegations contained in over 5,000 tinued emphasis on resolutions targeting Israel, communications sent to over 140 countries. The the lack of attention to other alarming country team assigned one of five values to each state re- situations, the election of serious human rights sponse, ranging from no reply, on the low end, to abusers to the Council, and backsliding on free- steps taken to address the allegation, on the high dom of expression issues have stoked ongoing un- end.6 This comprehensive approach allows us to dercurrents of criticism and hostility from some derive conclusions not only about the timeliness members of Congress, the media, and advocates and quality of a state’s reply, but also about the who have dismissed the U.N. and its instruments effect such communications have on influencing as ineffective. state behavior and advancing human rights at the country level. A more detailed note explaining Methodology the methodology for categorizing government replies to SP communications is available in the In evaluating the work of the U.N. Special Proce- Appendix. dures and their effects on state behavior, the proj- ect focused on state responses to the variety of The project team also examined country visits, communications and recommendations issued by another key tool of the Special Procedures. Dur- the mandate holders. Communications typically ing missions, which are undertaken only with the convey allegations of an ongoing or imminent hu- consent of the state concerned, mandate holders man rights violation within the mandate of one or meet with government officials, national human more Special Procedures, and are raised by an al- rights institutions, relevant nongovernmental legation letter or an urgent appeal to the relevant organizations, and alleged victims to assess the government. In accordance with HRC resolutions, situation relating to their respective mandates at governments are expected to reply to the mandate the national level. After concluding a visit, man- holder in a timely manner with all information date holders issue a mission report—including regarding the allegations, including, where appro- findings and recommendations—to the Human priate, the steps the government is taking to ad- Rights Council.7 While most states do not for- dress the alleged human rights violation.4 mally reply to the country mission reports, some do submit notes to the OHCHR or HRC, make To capture how states respond to these com- public statements or answer follow-up inquiries munications, the project team analyzed official issued by the Special Procedure.
4 See U.N. HRC Res. 5/2, “Code of Conduct for Special Procedures Mandate Holders of the Human Rights Council,” para. 1. 5 These replies are summarized by OHCHR staff and incorporated into the public reports of the mandate holders to the Human Rights Council. 6 Government responses to Special Procedure communications were assigned one of the following five categories: No Response (NR), Immaterial Response (IM), Violation Rejected Without Substantiation (VR), Responsive but Incomplete (RI), or Steps Taken to Address Allegations (ST). These categories were slightly altered for assessing the Working Groups due to their different working methods. For more information, see Appendix, Note on Methodology. 7 See U.N. HRC Res. 5/2, “Code of Conduct for Special Procedures Mandate Holders of the Human Rights Council,” Articles 11-13.
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights 3 The research team focused on a cross-section former mandate holders, as well as OHCHR staff, of such country visits to conduct qualitative re- government officials, NGO representatives and search, including field visits to selected countries independent experts guided by a questionnaire that a range of Special Procedures have visited. containing over a dozen questions relating to SPs’ Field visits allowed us to conduct original, quali- activities. A list of the more than 230 individuals tative research by visiting local NGOs, human and groups interviewed can be found in the Ap- rights victims, independent experts and govern- pendix. ment officials with whom Special Procedures have interacted. The objective of these visits was to as- It is important to note at the onset that the proj- sess first hand how a variety of states and other ect did not seek to determine the precise causal stakeholders respond to country visits conducted relationship between the recommendations of by Special Procedures and to elucidate findings Special Procedures and state implementation of and recommendations. international human rights norms. This would be virtually impossible. It would require proving that In November 2009, the project director traveled a state took action on a particular human rights to Spain and Morocco to study the work of the matter as a direct result of an SP’s activities. Many Special Procedures on torture, migrants, educa- factors, of course, contribute to a state’s decision tion, sale of children, housing, and enforced and to take such action; singling out the specific role involuntary disappearances, all of whom con- of a U.N. mandate holder is unrealistic. That said, ducted visits between 2003 and 2009. In January the effect or influence of a Special Procedure as a 2010, he visited the United Kingdom to study the contributing factor or catalyst toward state action work of Special Procedures on migrants, freedom is measurable with some confidence. This can be of religion, and the use of mercenaries. In April illustrated, for example, through a state’s recog- 2010, he visited Indonesia to study the work of nition of the mandate holder as the catalyst for the Special Procedures on education, indepen- compliance. Where the project has obtained cred- dence of judges and lawyers, migrant workers, ible acknowledgement of such causation—and human rights defenders, and torture. In May there are a handful of examples—information 2010, he conducted a research trip to Colom- is reflected accordingly. Typically, though, when bia, one of the countries most visited by Special governments make progress towards implement- Procedures. Since 2003, there have been a dozen ing an SP’s recommendations they do not identify country visits conducted by Special Procedures to the mandate holder as the source of inspiration Colombia—including the Special Rapporteur on or change. In these more typical narratives of summary executions, the working group on ar- government action, the project sought to explain bitrary detention, the Special Rapporteur on in- what value-added role the Special Procedures play digenous peoples, and the Special Rapporteur on in implementation and to identify best practices internally displaced persons (IDPs).8 In addition and shortcomings to derive recommendations for to the field visits, the project team initiated oral further strengthening of the mechanism. We fur- and written interviews with nearly 30 current and ther aimed to identify the factors that facilitate or
8 From 1992-2004, the official name of the IDP mandate was Representative of the U.N. Secretary-General on Internally Displaced Persons. In 2004, the official name of the mandate became the Representative of the U.N. Secretary General on the Human Rights of Internally Displaced Persons. In June 2010, the title of the mandate was changed to Special Rapporteur on the human rights of internally displaced persons. The titles are used interchangeably throughout the report.
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights 4 undermine the effectiveness of a mandate holder’s A Short Summary of Special Procedures: activities in a particular country. Who They Are and What They Do
During the course of the 18-month study, the proj- The U.N.’s system of Special Procedures is a unique ect convened an experts working group of former and effective mechanism that allows independent, mandate holders, human rights leaders, policy- periodic, on-the-ground scrutiny of a country’s makers, academics, lawyers, and diplomats to ad- record of respect for human rights. Since the ap- vise on the methodology and scope of the project pointment by the Commission on Human Rights as well as to shape and endorse final conclusions of an Ad Hoc Working Group to inquire into the and recommendations. Members of the group situation of human rights in Chile in 1975, fol- are listed on page vii. This group met two times lowed by appointment of the first special rappor- in Washington and engaged in dozens of substan- teur in 1979 on the same subject, this mechanism tive exchanges online. The group provided invalu- has grown to become one of the U.N. system’s able input into the drafting of the final report and most important instruments for promotion of reached consensus on its core recommendations; universal human rights norms at the national and the research findings, on the other hand, are the international level. Currently, 31 thematic man- sole responsibility of the project director. dates exist, an increase of 47.6 percent since 2000; eight country-specific mandates are in operation, The project director also benefited from participa- a decline of 42.8 percent over the same period.10 tion in various meetings and briefings convened by This shift reflects two important trends: the cre- member states and research institutions regarding ation of new mandates dealing with economic, the current workings of the Human Rights Coun- social and cultural rights of particular concern to cil and its deliberations regarding the five-year re- developing countries; and the successful efforts view.9 In February 2010, the project and its experts by some states, particularly those with bad human group teamed up with The Carter Center’s Human rights records, to avoid the “naming and shaming” Rights Defenders program to discuss measures tactics associated with country-specific mandates to strengthen the U.N. human rights system. The in favor of the peer review and technical assis- two-day conference held in Washington included tance aspects of the Universal Periodic Review. private and public meetings aimed at formulating policy recommendations to strengthen the Coun- The experts appointed by the Human Rights cil and encourage effective U.S. participation. The Council to serve as Special Procedures are in- chief output of the collaboration was the publica- dependent of governments, serve in their per- tion and dissemination of a joint statement, found sonal capacities, and carry out their mandates in the Appendix, endorsed by an exceptional on a volunteer basis. They may serve no more group of human rights defenders, academics, and than six years total (thematic mandate holders practitioners about the importance of an effective typically serve two terms of three years and coun- Human Rights Council. try-specific mandate holders typically serve for
9 These included a Wilton Park conference on the HRC five-year review in January 2010, a symposium hosted by New England College of Law in March 2010, and a research workshop organized by the Centre for International Governance at the University of Leeds in June 2010. 10 A list of current mandate holders can be accessed at
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights 5 one year renewable terms). Their authority is de- as was seen most recently in the appointment of rived from their professional qualifications to ad- certain mandate holders in June 2010. dress specific human rights situations objectively as well as the political mandate they receive from The Office of the High Commissioner for Human the Council. Governments rely on them to gather Rights serves as the repository of all official com- facts, identify problems and make recommenda- munications of the Special Procedures and has a tions, but carry out little systematic follow-up. specialized unit to support them with a team of One of their greatest assets is a sense of passion professionals who rotate around the system.12 This and commitment to the cause of human rights support structure has improved from the early which, combined with subject matter expertise, days when the Center for Human Rights acted as political skills and good judgment, represents a the U.N. Secretariat’s staff for human rights; the dynamic force for catalyzing attention and action Center then became the Office of the High Com- to protect human rights. missioner for Human Rights in 1994 with the ap- pointment of the first High Commissioner that In June 2007, the Human Rights Council agreed year, an important and positive outcome of the upon a new system of appointing its independent Vienna Conference on Human Rights in 1993. experts that moves away from the close control The 2003 creation of a Special Procedures Branch formerly exercised by the President of the Coun- (SPB) in OHCHR allowed for better management cil and the High Commissioner toward greater of resources and personnel. During the following transparency and consultation with multiple six years, the Special Procedures Branch evolved stakeholders.11 Candidates may be nominated by into the Special Procedures Division (SPD) and governments, nongovernmental organizations, continued to support the majority of thematic other U.N. bodies or individuals. OHCHR pre- mandate holders. In 2010, the OHCHR under- pares a public list of eligible candidates. Criteria went an internal restructuring which resulted in for appointment include human rights expertise the creation of the Human Rights Council and and experience in the field of the mandate, in- Special Procedures Division, which is responsible dependence, impartiality, personal integrity and for supporting the Human Rights Council, the objectivity. A Consultative Group composed Universal Periodic Review, and the Special Pro- of representatives from each regional group re- cedures. views the candidates and makes recommenda- tions to the President of the Council, who con- These structural adjustments have further im- tinues a process of consultation before presenting proved services to the Special Procedures although the list to the Council for final approval. While much work remains to be done to improve support this method has decreased the level of backroom to the independent experts. OHCHR staff support- dealing and manipulation that was evident un- ing the country-specific mandates, for example, der the old system, and continues to generate on remain in a separate branch located in a separate whole an impressive and diverse group of candi- building with fewer resources.13 Furthermore, sup- dates from every region, some states continue to porting the mandate is only one of many tasks that demand that their favorite candidates be chosen, these country desk officers handle. Some Special
11 HRC Resolution 5/1, paras. 39-53. 12 Despite repeated requests, OHCHR was unable to provide a figure of how many of its staff support the Special Procedures, including the number directly assigned to the Special Procedures Branch. 13 OHCHR Annual Report 2009, pp. 18-19, available at
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights 6 Procedures bitterly complain of the lack of pro- What role such a mechanism plays in engender- fessional support they receive from Geneva while ing state cooperation to defend human rights is others express satisfaction. Tension between the the central inquiry of this report. While the U.N. independence of the Special Procedures and Charter sets forth every state’s obligation to pro- the support function of the OHCHR arises fre- mote “universal respect for, and observance of, quently, particularly around issues of resource al- human rights and fundamental freedoms for all location, public communications and the Code of without distinction as to race, sex, language, or re- Conduct, and demands ongoing attention from ligion,” and to cooperate with the U.N. to achieve the High Commissioner and her senior staff. this objective,15 no specific treaty instrument binds them to cooperate with the Special Proce- The main reference points for Special Procedures’ dures or to comply with their recommendations. examination of a state’s human rights record range The Human Rights Council has, however, urged broadly from the general provisions of the Uni- “all states to cooperate with, and assist, the special versal Declaration of Human Rights and other in- procedures in the performance of their tasks, and ternationally recognized human rights standards to provide all information in a timely manner, as to the specific terms of their mandates from the well as respond to communications … without HRC. They may rely on particular instruments of undue delay.”16 Furthermore, when creating the “hard” treaty law as well as “soft” law of relevant Council, the General Assembly decided that states declarations, resolutions and guiding principles. elected to the new body “shall fully cooperate In this regard, they have several important advan- with the Council.”17 Nearly all states that run for tages over treaty bodies: they are not restricted to a seat on the Council make pledges in which they the text of any one convention; they may exam- proclaim a commitment to work cooperatively ine any U.N. member state, not just those states with the Council and its mechanisms, including that have ratified a treaty; they may make in situ its independent experts. These provisions offer visits to any country in the world (assuming the some leverage for the Special Procedures to insist government concerned grants permission); and on state cooperation, who otherwise rely on po- they may receive and act upon individual com- litical pressure and moral persuasion to influence plaints without prior exhaustion of domestic rem- state behavior. As this report details, a variety of edies. This combination of features gives them a factors help to determine state responses to inter- uniquely flexible and independent role to play in national scrutiny of their human rights perfor- a system otherwise dominated by governments. mance. They operate, in the words of one researcher, in the space between universal norms and local re- In carrying out their mandates, the Council’s in- alities, allowing them to elaborate and interpret dependent experts employ a variety of working international standards grounded in concrete sit- methods to bridge the distance between interna- uations, “to define rights in real time.”14 tional norms and national-level implementation.
14 Joanna Irene Naples-Mitchell, “Defining Rights in Real Time: The U.N. Special Procedures’ Contribution to the International Human Rights System,” Senior Thesis, Harvard College of Arts and Sciences, March 2010 (unpublished). 15 Charter of the United Nations, Articles 55, 56. 16 Human Rights Council Resolution A/HRC/RES/5/2, operative paragraph 1, 18 June 2007. See also Human Rights Council Resolution A/ HRC/RES/11/11, preamble, 18 June 2009. 17 A/RES/60/251, para 9.
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights 7 These include country visits; direct communica- individually and jointly; and press conferences. Of tions with victims and their representatives re- these, the country visits and communications are garding specific violations; letters of allegation most directly relevant to evaluating the contribu- and urgent appeals to governments; thematic and tion of Special Procedures to national level imple- country reports submitted at least annually to the mentation of international norms and, therefore, Human Rights Council and where mandated, to serve as the core focus of our report. the General Assembly; press statements, both
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights 8 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
1. Our research found that the U.N.’sindependent and the lack of a systematic process for follow- experts have played a valuable and, in some ing up their recommendations. Despite these cases, decisive role in drawing attention to obstacles, the Special Procedures mechanism chronic and emerging human rights issues represents one of the most effective tools of and in catalyzing improvements in respect for the international human rights system and de- human rights on the ground, including direct serves further strengthening and support. support to victims. Country Visits 2. At the same time, state cooperation with the Special Procedures is highly uneven and gen- Scope of Activity erally disappointing, with some notable ex- ceptions. Cooperation by states ranges from 4. The Special Procedures are prolific workers, regularly accepting country visits by multiple annually conducting dozens of country visits, independent experts along with high response producing hundreds of country-specific and rates to their communications, to virtually zero thematic reports, and issuing thousands of recognition or dialogue with the rapporteurs. communications to individual governments. As further illustrated by the evidence that fol- Together, Special Procedures have conducted lows, this failure by member states to fulfill an average of 50 country visits per year since their obligations to cooperate with the Special 2005. This number has grown from 48 visits Procedures and address the recommendations to 38 countries in 2006, to 53 visits to 48 coun- they make is the main obstacle hampering tries in 2008 and 73 visits to 51 states and ter- their ability to fulfill the mandates states have ritories in 2009.18 The overwhelming majority given them. of these visits result in country-specific reports presented to the Human Rights Council. In 3. The Special Procedures are also hobbled by a 2009, Special Procedures presented a total of host of other challenges, including inadequate 160 reports to the Human Rights Council and training and resources, insufficient under- General Assembly—nearly 70 regarding coun- standing of the local context for their work, try situations and more than 60 on thematic
18 One explanation for the increase in country visits since 2006 is the creation of three new mandates on slavery, water and cultural rights. The Special Procedures Facts and Figures from 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009 provide annual breakdowns of country visits. For 2005 figures, see the 2005 OHCHR Annual Report.
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights 9 issues.19 The total number of reports has re- mained generally consistent over the last sev- eral years; from 2006 through 2008, they pre- sented roughly 150 reports annually.20 Notably, the number of mandate holders reporting to the General Assembly has increased since 2008 when Special Rapporteurs on Education and Housing were mandated to report annually to the New York body.21
5. While the overall number of states visited by Special Procedures annually has increased in the last decade, the breakdown and make up of those states and mandates in a given year have varied. States in the GRULAC and Af- rica groups stand out as demonstrating an in- creased willingness to receive visits compared to other regions. In 1999 GRULAC and Africa hosted thirteen and nine visits respectively. In 2009 they hosted 23 and 19 each. States in the Asia, WEOG, and EEG groups received a slightly higher number of visits in 2009 as they did in 1999.22 For a country-by-country sum- mary of the number of completed and pending SP visits, see the Appendix.
6. The states that have received the highest number of visits—16 states and territories have received ten or more visits in the last ten years—have received an increasingly diverse group of the- Guatemala—one of the most frequently visited matic mandate holders, reflecting the intro- states—has received the Special Procedures on duction of new areas of attention, especially extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary execu- topics concerned with economic, social and tion; involuntary disappearances; and in more cultural rights and group rights.23 For example, recent years the mandate holders on food and
19 Facts and Figures 2009, p. 14, available at
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights 10 education. Among its visits, the Russian Federa- 8. By most accounts, country visits were the tion has accepted the Special Procedures on vi- most important tool in the SP toolbox. The olence against women, independence of judges monitoring function of a Special Procedures’ and lawyers, and indigenous rights (although it country visit in and of itself has a salutary im- continues to deny permission for the expert on pact on the human rights situation in a given torture to visit). Brazil has hosted several man- country. This is largely due to the serious at- date holders, running the gamut from torture tention SP visits receive from most govern- and housing to toxic waste, while the United ments, civil society and the media. The blue States has received the Special Procedures on U.N. flag SPs carry when they land in a coun- migrants, extreme poverty, counter terrorism, try allows them privileged access to key ac- and the use of mercenaries, among others.24 tors on the ground, granting them an elevated voice in the quest to achieve greater respect 7. In some cases, states have received more than for human rights. Their physical presence in one visit from the same thematic mandate over country gives victims of human rights viola- the last ten years. For instance, Nigeria received tions and their defenders a higher platform the Special Rapporteur on food in 2001 and for for advocacy at the national level and a direct a follow up in 2004; the Democratic Republic entry point into an otherwise complicated of Congo hosted the Special Rapporteur on and bureaucratic U.N. system. extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary execu- tions in 2002 and 2009; the Special Rapporteur 9. Country visits by SPs, which typically last 5-15 on education visited the United Kingdom in days, allow for close examination of specific 1999 and 2002; and the Special Representative human rights situations and motivate key ac- of the Secretary General (SRSG) on internally tors in and outside governments to concen- displaced persons visited Georgia three times trate their energies toward establishing facts, from 2000 to 2008. Twenty-four states have identifying violations and recommending received repeat visits from the same mandate. remedies. The visits are especially important Colombia and Guatemala top this list, having for civil society actors who devote consider- received five and three repeat visits respective- able time and attention to informing the ex- ly. The Democratic Republic of Congo, Cuba, perts about the human rights problems in the Ecuador, Timor-Leste and Uganda have each country, preparing substantive reports, helping received two repeat visits.25 OHCHR main- them make contact with victims and suggest- tains a list of country visits conducted since ing ways to improve state compliance with in- 1998 with tallies of forthcoming, requested, ternational standards. In many cases, such vis- and pending visit requests. Please see the Ap- its prompt or strengthen mechanisms of col- pendix for a summary breakdown. laboration among disparate nongovernmental
24 The United States has hosted 14 country visits since 1998. In 2005, it rejected visit requests from the Special Procedures on health and on independence of judges and lawyers to visit Guantanamo Bay while accepting the same request of the Special Procedures on freedom of religion, torture, and arbitrary detention. The terms of the visit, however, were very limited, allowing only one day and prohibiting private interviews with detainees. The SPs declined the visit on grounds that restricting the privacy of confidential interviews contravenes the Terms of Reference for Fact-finding Missions by Special Procedures. To view the SPs’ press release, see
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights 11 organizations, help professionalize their work considered a good practice.26 Public statements and foster ongoing cooperation that leads to by SPs before arriving in country, on the other more effective advocacy. The visits also allow hand, can complicate a country visit unless they mandate holders the opportunity to raise issues are scrupulously neutral. directly with government officials at the high- est levels and advise them on specific reforms. 12. It takes several months for Special Procedures to prepare and issue their final reports, which 10. Because of their high profile, visiting a country are closely read by government officials and as an independent U.N. expert can be a political human rights activists alike. From the point of minefield. Therefore, an effective country visit view of human rights advocates on the ground, depends on thorough and substantive prepara- however, it is the substantive public statements tion by the independent expert and his or her made by the Special Procedures while in coun- staff before, during and after a visit. Close con- try, particularly during the concluding press sultation with a range of relevant actors, includ- conference, that matters most. Waiting a year ing OHCHR, treaty bodies and U.N. country or more for a final report in a foreign language team staff, government officials, human rights can often deflate the momentum generated by defenders and experts, political party leaders the visit. When it does happen, presentation of and parliamentarians to understand the politi- the report to the Council through brief “inter- cal context and identify the main challenges is active dialogues” with member states is anticli- critical to a successful mission. mactic, often overshadowed by other concerns on the agenda and loses it punch, particularly 11. The media play an essential role in amplifying for the country in question.27 Broad dissemi- the main points of the visit and creating some nation of the final report in country is uneven pressure for governments to respond. Typically, and rarely available in local languages or only SPs brief the media upon arrival in a country to after much delay. explain the terms of their mandate and purpose of the visit then refrain from any further public 13. While states are generally encouraged to en- statements until a departure press conference in gage in a dialogue and cooperate with SPs, which the expert provides initial observations most do not file official responses to country regarding the subject under review along with visits, thereby making it difficult to analyze some recommendations. Preceding this public how states themselves evaluate the final report report, which is generally well-covered by the delivered to the U.N. or what action they take media, the Special Procedure briefs govern- in response. Based on interviews conducted ment officials, giving them an opportunity to by the project team, states that have accepted provide initial reactions to the expert directly country visits use the opportunity to provide and to the press, subsequently. This process of background and context to the issues under private consultation and public reporting is well discussion and to engage in direct dialogue regarded by most actors involved and should be with the SPs as they prepare their reports.28
26 The Manual of Operations of the Special Procedures sets forth this process in paragraphs 71-72. 27 Some rapporteurs reported a higher quality, more substantive interactive dialogue in New York. 28 Draft reports generally are submitted to the government four to six weeks before publication to allow it to correct any misunderstandings or factual inaccuracies, according to the Manual of Procedures, para. 74. See also Code of Conduct, Art. 13(c) (“mandate holders shall ensure that the concerned government authorities are the first recipients of their conclusions and recommendations concerning this State and given adequate time to respond…”).
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights 12 Some government officials, however, express states have issued standing invitations, al- disappointment that their input is not always though many more states allow visits in prac- fully reflected in the final reports. In more tice.30 When broken down by regional group, dramatic cases, governments react very badly stark differences emerge with African and to criticism by special rapporteurs, especially Asian governments representing only a small when delivered in language perceived as un- fraction of countries on the list of standing duly harsh or aggressive, and go so far as to invitations. block any substantive consideration of the report. 15. In general, a country’s issuance of a standing invitation to Special Procedure visits results 14. Starting in 2004, the Commission on Hu- in easier access to that country. Of the 72 man Rights strongly encouraged states to of- states that have issued standing invitations, fer standing invitations to Special Procedures all those which have received requests for as a way to facilitate their access to a country visits (64) have accepted them at least once.31 in a timely way.29 Currently, only 72 member On the other hand, of the remaining 120
Number of Countries Issuing Standing Invitations by UN Regional Group 60
49 50 46 s 40 ountrie
30 26
20 19 18 15 Number of C 10 7 443 0 Africa Asia EEG GRULAC WEOG UN Regional Group
SI (Standing Invitation) NSI (No Standing Invitation)
29 Commission on Human Rights Resolution 2004/76, Human rights and special procedures, para. 2(b), available at
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights 13 states that have failed to issue a standing in- vitation, 44 (36 percent) have never received States That Have Never Accepted a visit, and 19 of these states carry a total of Special Procedures’ Requests for Country Visits (1998-June 2010) 41 unfulfilled visit requests.32 Looked at an- other way, since 1998, states that have issued Zimbabwe 9 standing invitations have received four visits Eritrea 4 and maintain one and a half pending visits DPRK 4 from Special Procedures, while those that Gambia 3 have not issued standing invitations have re- Libyan Arab Jamahiriya 3 ceived three visits and maintain nearly three Syria 3 pending visits.33 Of course, there are notable Malawi 2 exceptions to this trend and country behav- Mauritius 2 ior varies in practice. Iran, for instance, has Swaziland 1 issued a standing invitation but has not al- Seychelles 1 lowed a country visit since 2005 and cur- Nauru 1 rently maintains seven pending visits. Some Namibia 1 Marshall Islands requests for permission to visit are known 1 Guinea-Bissau 1 to have languished for over ten years; even Gabon 1 once a government accepts a request to visit, Congo 1 it can take over five years for the visit to take Mali 1 place. Perversely, because SPs cannot visit a Madagascar 1 country without the government’s permis- Guinea 1 sion, non-cooperating states with serious hu- 0246810 man rights problems like Zimbabwe, Libya, Eritrea and Syria can evade scrutiny by SPs while states that allow visits inevitably get more attention. with witnesses, who must be protected from reprisals.34 Negotiations are often complicat- 16. Before the visit takes place, SPs and states ed by a state’s desire to influence the timing, engage in direct negotiations on the terms scope and itinerary of an expert’s visit as well of reference for the visit, which are spelled as to spread out the workload of multiple out in the SP’s Manual of Procedures. These reporting requirements. It is up to each rap- guidelines include freedom of movement, ac- porteur to decide whether the conditions of cess to all prisoners and places of detention, the visit would compromise his or her ability and confidential and unsupervised contact to independently monitor the human rights
32 As of June 2010, the 19 states that have never accepted a request for a country visit are: Congo, DPRK, Eritrea, Gambia, Gabon, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Namibia, Nauru, Seychelles, Swaziland, Syria and Zimbabwe. Namibia, however, received its request in 2010 and Syria received its first special rapporteur in September 2010. Another 25 states that have not issued a standing invitation have never received a request for a visit. 33 For the purpose of this study, “pending visits” is defined as requested visits and visits that have been agreed upon in principle but remained unscheduled. 34 See Annex III to Manual of Procedures, E/CN.41998/45 Appendix V. Protection of witnesses and their relatives is of growing concern due to notorious attacks against them, most notably the murder of two human rights defenders in Kenya in 2009 after they met with the Special Rapporteur on summary, extrajudicial or arbitrary detention.
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights 14 situation in the country. Granting exceptions between the governments of Indonesia and to the standard terms of reference can pro- Malaysia to prompt reforms. The bilateral vide a bad precedent for other rapporteurs, agreement allowed Malaysian employers to opening the door for states to insist on easier take identity documents away from Indone- terms for the next visit. China, for instance, sian migrant workers, leading to many hu- exploited the Working Group on Arbitrary man rights abuses. Government officials first Detention’s (WGAD) willingness to negoti- denied the allegation, and then threatened ate the terms of the visit on the ground and retaliation if he insisted on including a refer- demanded the same terms from the Special ence to the MOU in his report. After going Rapporteur on Torture, who declined the ahead and publishing the discovery of the visit under these circumstances.35 MOU, officials annulled the document, re- sulting in immediate improvements.36 Effects on State Behavior 19. More recently, the Special Rapporteur for 17. In general, states have made modest but im- Cambodia was able to visit two journalists im- portant progress toward implementing the prisoned on defamation charges, and quickly recommendations a Special Procedure makes secured better treatment from the authorities; after a country visit. The reasons why states shortly after, one of the prisoners was released. take such actions are multiple and complex. One of the journalists’ relatives publicly cred- In many cases, an SP’s country visit serves as ited the rapporteur for his freedom.37 an important tool for elevating human rights issues to senior levels of government and gen- 20. Typically, however, a direct connection be- erating action to remedy the problem. Several tween an SP’s recommendation and govern- human rights defenders explained that they ment action is hard to prove. In part this is did not see positive action by the government due to the fact that the relevant national au- on an issue they had raised for years until the thorities are not inclined to give credit to a Special Procedure confirmed and called at- U.N. mechanism for their actions or are moti- tention to the problem. vated by other domestic political factors.
18. In some cases, it is possible to draw a direct 21. During our research, we gathered numerous line between a Special Procedure’s recom- examples of positive steps taken by govern- mendation and a state’s implementation of ments after the issue was raised during an SP’s such an action. For example, the Special Rap- country visit. Here are just a few illustrations porteur on Migrants was able to use informa- (additional examples can be found in the Ap- tion he received regarding a secret agreement pendix):
35 Sir Nigel Rodley, “On Negotiating with Torturers,” interviewed by Amy D. Bernstein, in Torture: Does it Make us Safe? Is it ever OK?, Kenneth Roth and Minky Worden (eds.), New Press and Human Rights Watch, 2005, pp. 108-09. 36 Jorge Bustamante, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants, Mission to Indonesia, March 2, 2007. A/HRC/4/24/ Add.3. Full report can be accessed at
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights 15 EXAMPLES a second blanket and plastic sheets so they could create private corridors. Addition- a. In 2004, the Independent Expert on the ally, government officials ensured monthly situation of human rights in Afghanistan inspections by authorities and weekly vis- successfully persuaded government au- its by doctors.39 thorities to release hundreds of illegally detained prisoners. Upon visiting the Pol- c. The SR on human rights of internally dis- e Charkhi prison, the Independent Expert placed persons helped shape and imple- discovered that 734 Pakistani and Afghani ment IDP policy in Turkey after making detainees had been forcibly held in de- a country visit in 2002 and conducting a plorable conditions for more than thirty follow up working visit in 2005. Upon his months. After presenting the information recommendations, the government de- to the Minister of Justice in May 2004, cided to gather data and statistics on IDPs President Karzai released 534 of these that had previously been lacking, to train prisoners and later issued decrees to par- local governors on the Guiding Principles don various others.38 Moreover, through on treatment of IDPs, and to begin to ad- documentation of substandard living and dress questions of compensation for prop- health conditions, the Independent Expert erty lost as a result of displacement.40 The secured the visit of two doctors to the pris- question of the number of IDPs in Turkey on, resulting in the diagnosis and treat- had become a hot political issue with es- ment of hundreds of cases of tuberculosis. timates varying from a few thousand to more than two million. The decision by b. In another case during his tenure, the Inde- the government to commission an inde- pendent Expert on Afghanistan uncovered pendent study on the number of IDPs was and publicized unacceptable conditions in thus an important step in developing plans a women’s prison in Afghanistan. Not only to address the concerns of the displaced were many of these women imprisoned and human rights groups that worked with for crimes committed by family members them. The SR encouraged provincial au- but they were forced to raise their children thorities to develop action plans to address within the confines of the prison. In ad- internal displacement and provided tech- dition to publishing this information in a nical assistance to them, particularly in the country mission report, the Independent case of Van province. The development of Expert encouraged government authori- laws and policies to provide compensation ties to improve prison conditions, result- for IDPs who had lost property is another ing in increased budget allocations for area where the SRSG was able to provide food and supplies. Each prisoner received necessary technical assistance.
38 Report of the Independent Expert of the Commission on Human Rights on the situation of human rights in Afghanistan, September 21, 2004, pp. 5 and 20. U.N. Doc: A/59/370. 39 Cherif Bassiouni served as Independent Expert on human rights in Afghanistan from 2004-2006, presenting two reports to the Human Rights Commission and General Assembly: A/59/370 and E/CN.4/2005/122. Examples of impact found in the reports were augmented by an interview with the former mandate holder on March 12, 2010. 40 Hacettepe University’s Institute of Populations Studies conducts the Turkey migration and Internally Displaced Persons Survey annually and questionnaire for the survey was “prepared in guidance of the United Nations’ Internally Displaced Persons Guiding Principles.” For more information see
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights 16 d. The Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, recommendations was taken up and has summary and arbitrary executions visited resulted in tangible results. To prevent tor- Colombia in 2009 and revived media and ture and ill treatment, the mandate holder international scrutiny of the ongoing fal- suggested that video cameras be installed sos positivos or false positives scandal. For in all interrogation rooms. The govern- years, NGOs had been gathering and pub- ment first responded by explaining why licizing information regarding executions this recommendation was not feasible. In of unarmed civilians by military person- a 2007 follow up, however, the govern- nel who would falsely present the victims ment indicated that it was in the process as guerilla fighters. The scandal came to a of determining the viability of video re- head in 2008 with the Soacha tragedy that cording in interrogation rooms.42 By 2008, resulted in nearly two dozen cases of falsos the government ordered the installation of positivos. The government consistently de- video cameras in detention areas in police nied a problem until the high-profile Soa- and Guardia Civil stations. Despite the cha killings, at which time it dismissed 27 government’s original rejection of the rap- military officials, including three generals. porteur’s report, the recommendations ul- The Special Rapporteur’s visit—amidst the timately contributed to improved detainee scandal—served to confirm the allega- treatment.43 tions of victims’ relatives and civil society, determine that soldiers received certain Key Factors to Explain Impact of Country Visits privileges and benefits from their com- manders in return for guerrilla “captures,” 22. Several factors emerge as key ingredients for and encourage further dismissals, investi- facilitating positive action by governments in gations and prosecutions of perpetrators. response to a country visit. These include: The Special Rapporteur was able to raise his concerns directly with President Uribe a. The credibility of the United Nations in the and other high-level officials. His findings country concerned as the premier global lent further credence to the understanding body to develop and uphold universal that the murders were committed by ele- norms and foster international coopera- ments of the military and were not isolated tion. The moral power of the U.N.’s“blue occurrences, and helped secure additional stationery,” the international backing it arrests and prosecutions.41 conveys, and the public attention a U.N. expert commands often yield significant e. The Special Rapporteur on torture con- pressure to generate positive state action. ducted a particularly tumultuous coun- try visit to Spain in 2003 that resulted in b. The timing of the visit as it relates to a coun- an 80-page response from the govern- try’s political and human rights situation. ment that challenged nearly every recom- Countries in transition, moving away from mendation issued by the mandate holder. conflict or authoritarian rule and toward Nevertheless, one of the Special Rapporteur’s a more open, peaceful and democratic
41 Report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Mission to Colombia. U.N. Doc: A/HRC/14/24/Add.2. 42 Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture, follow up to country visits. U.N. Doc: A/HRC/7/3/Add.2 43 Many government and NGO representatives interviewed over the course of the project confirmed this impact of the visit.
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights 17 society, tend to offer more opportuni- d. The willingness of the relevant government to ties for external influence than countries cooperate with the SP’s visit. For example, a locked in civil conflict or burdened by a well-placed, sympathetic official or leading closed system. In intensely polarized situ- parliamentarian can often make a difference ations, opposing sides will seek to manipu- in facilitating the SP’s work and implemen- late a rapporteur’s visit and report to their tation of recommendations. The willingness own advantage, hindering impact. This and ability of the government to organize is not to say, however, that efforts to en- inter-ministerial coordination mechanisms gage closed regimes or conflict situations to address concerns raised by the SPs is an- should be dropped as the U.N. expert often other important factor. Conversely, obstruc- offers the only avenue for human rights is- tion and interference by government agents sues to be examined and publicly aired. can frustrate or neutralize the SPs’ work. Some government officials have unrealistic c. The quality and specificity of the SP’s re- expectations that the expert’s mission is to search, analysis and recommendations endorse state policy rather than serve as an and the level of preparation before a vis- objective critic and shut down cooperation it. On the one hand, it was strongly felt in the wake of a negative report. by key government and non-government actors that a well-grounded report with e. The ability of local and international NGOs solid evidence, strong legal arguments and victims’ groups to communicate their and concrete recommendations is one of grievances in a timely and effective manner the most important elements for achiev- and to engage in follow-up advocacy. In ing progress.44 On the other hand, general, many cases, the principal reason any fol- aspirational recommendations have little low-up action was taken by governments impact and make follow-up difficult. In was due to a persistent NGO adopting the some cases, factual mistakes or statements SP’s recommendations as a platform for a by SPs perceived as unduly harsh or unbal- long-term advocacy campaign. In North- anced were used by states and others to at- ern Ireland, for example, a coalition led by tack and undermine not only the SPs’ work British Irish Rights Watch worked closely but that of other U.N. actors as well. The with the Special Rapporteur on the In- language, tone and style a rapporteur uses dependence of Judges and Lawyers (Mr. matters almost as much as the content of Param Cumaraswamy) to prepare his visit what he or she has to say. Positive words and to follow up his recommendations. acknowledging progress where it exists After six years of determined advocacy, all can go a long way toward helping govern- but one of his recommendations had been ment officials accept the more critical find- implemented by the relevant government ings of a rapporteur’s report. As one senior authorities. On the other hand, special government official explained, a report rapporteurs must be vigilant to the risk of that failed to present the government’s side being manipulated by nongovernmental of the story was “thrown into the trash.” groups who seek to use their visits as part
44 The Manual of Procedures, para. 98, states that SP recommendations should be SMART: specific, measurable, attainable, realistic and time- bound.
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights 18 of a propaganda campaign to allege human g. The capacity of and attention paid by the U.N. rights abuses against the government with- country team and other relevant U.N. agen- out substantiation. cies like the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees and the U.N. Development Pro- f. The level of freedom of the media to report gram. The potential contribution of these on an SP’s activities. In most countries, U.N. actors to the success of a country visit a visit by a senior U.N. expert generates is great but in practice has varied. The U.N. widespread attention which is greatly en- presence ranges in size and capacity from a hanced by a robust and well-briefed media small country office with only a few staff ca- corps. Here again, the established practice pable of providing assistance before, during of SPs reporting their findings to the press or after an SP’s visit, to a major field pres- at the end of their visit is well-received by ence with dozens of in-country staff well- states and SPs alike. On the other hand, positioned to help organize the visit, provide the SP’s ready access to the media can advice to the SPs on key elements, and in- complicate the mission, prompting strong corporate their findings and recommenda- government criticism. The seminal case, tions in the workplan after the visit. Some decided in favor of the Special Procedures U.N. country teams prefer to remain at arms in 1999, involved a $112 million claim of length from the SPs due to the sensitive top- defamation filed by the government of ics they raise. Others admit that the rap- Malaysia against Param Cumaraswamy, porteurs can say tough things that need to the Special Rapporteur for Independence be said and that their reports help make the of Judges and Lawyers. Eventually, the case for reforms and technical assistance. International Court of Justice ruled that U.N. special rapporteurs must be regard- Follow-up to Country Visits ed as “experts on mission” and accorded certain privileges and immunities such 23. What happens after a country visit remains as exemption from defamation charges.45 one of the most challenging questions for the Other more recent examples include the U.N. human rights system. A number of good critical U.S. response to statements made practices have been established largely on the by the SRSG for Internally Displaced Per- initiative of a few rapporteurs with additional sons regarding its actions after Hurricane resources. These include ongoing requests for Katrina, Spain’s denunciation of the Spe- information from the government concerned, cial Rapporteur on the promotion and questionnaires to key stakeholders, annual protection of human rights while coun- reporting to the HRC on the status of a state’s tering terrorism regarding comments on progress or lack thereof, and follow-up visits his visit to the Basque country, and Bra- by the rapporteur or his or her successor. zil’s public attack on the Special Rappor- teur on the Right to Food in response to 24. Thereis, however, no institutionalized mech- his comments regarding genocide. anism for follow-up to an SP’s country visit.
45 Difference Relating to Immunity From Legal Process of a Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights, Advisory Opinion of 29 April 1999, International Court of Justice, available at
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights 19 SPs themselves generally do not have the re- NGO campaigns tend to be ad hoc, under- sources—time or staff—to engage in repeat- resourced or overcome by more urgent mat- ed visits or communications. Only in a few ters. The new Universal Periodic Review cases, usually when additional resources are mechanism (UPR) does allow an SP’s recom- available, has an SP methodically reported mendations for a specific country to receive on a state’s implementation of recommenda- renewed attention at least once during that tions.46 Similarly, a current or successor SP country’s four-year cycle of peer reviews, but has carried out visits to the same country two it is premature to say what effect this has on a or more years later with the express purpose member state’s implementation of the recom- of tracking progress on previous recommen- mendations. (See section below on UPR for dations. The Special Procedures on internally more information.) displaced persons and on indigenous peoples have conducted the most follow-up visits.47 Communications Others that have conducted follow up visits are the Special Procedures on independence 26. According to OHCHR, since 2005 alone, Spe- of judges and lawyers, human rights defend- cial Procedures with thematic mandates have ers, housing and migrants. sent more than 5,000 communications to hundreds of member states on behalf of thou- 25. With the exception of most of the OHCHR sands of victims of human rights violations.48 field presences, the U.N. Country Team and When tallying communications, OHCHR other U.N. actors have not always been keen counts a communications sent by multiple or reliable partners in this endeavor while mandate holders once.
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total Communications 1,049 1,115 1,003 911 1,145 Government Recipients 137 143 128 118 119 Individuals Implicated 2,545 2,869 2,994 2,206 2,296
46 The Special Procedures on torture, extrajudicial summary and arbitrary executions, and housing make a point of sending follow up questionnaires to countries they or their predecessors have visited and publishing results as follow up reports. 47 The former visited Azerbaijan in 1998, 2007, 2010; Bosnia and Herzegovina in 2005 and 2008; the Central African Republic in 2008 and 2009; the Democratic Republic of Congo in 2008 and 2009; Georgia in 2000, 2005, and 2008; Sri Lanka in 2007 and 2009; Sudan in 2001, 2002, 2004, and 2005; and Uganda in 2000 and 2009. The latter visited Chile in 2003 and 2009; Colombia in 2004 and 2009; Guatemala in 2002 and 2010. For a full list, see the OHCHR compilation of country visits located in the Appendix or accessible at
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights 20 27. For the scope of this study, from 2004 to 17 States Have Received More Than Half of all 2008, 17 thematic Special Procedures (not Special Procedures Communications including the Working Group on Arbitrary (2004-2008) Detention or the Working Group on Disap- pearances) sent 8,713 communications to Iran 549 174 states and ten non-state actors.49 These China 500 figures are higher than those of OHCHR be- cause the research team counted all commu- Colombia 348 nications recorded by each mandate in their Mexico 305 annual reports from 2004-2008, irrespective Nepal of whether or not the communication was re- 297 corded by more than one mandate holder.50 Sudan 250
Some states received far more communica- India 249 tions than others. According to OHCHR, the highest recipients in 2009 were Iran with 42 Russian Federation 217 total communications, Mexico with 37, and Uzbekistan 215 51 China with 35. According to our study, the Pakistan 213 top four recipients over the course of the five years studied were similarly Iran with 594 Democratic Republic of Congo 202 communications, China with 500, Colombia Syria 195 with 348 and Mexico in a close fourth with Myanmar 175 305. These four countries alone account for nearly 20% of all communications received Tunisia 165 by states. Half of all communications issued Bangladesh 164 in the same period went to 17 governments. Guatemala 161
28. According to the HRC’s Code of Conduct, Philippines 160 communications from Special Procedures should be based on information “submitted by 0 100 200300 400 500 600 a person or group of persons claiming to be a victim of violations or by a person or group of with human rights…and claiming to have persons, including non-governmental orga- direct or reliable knowledge of those viola- nizations, acting in good faith in accordance tions substantiated by clear information. The
49 Non-state recipients of communications from 2004-2008 were the World Bank, Syngenta, ITM Angola, the Global Fund, Coca Cola Company, Asian Development Bank, Agence Francaise de Developement, Newmont Ghana Gold Limited, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and the U.N. Mission in Kosovo and were sent by the Special Procedures on Food, Health, Housing, Sale of Children, Toxic Waste, and Violence Against Women. This trend of examining the effects non-state actors have on respect for human rights is new and deserves further study. 50 While special procedures do send the majority of communications with at least one other rapporteur, these are not necessarily recorded identically in the official documentation made available by OHCHR—different dates may be recorded, records may not include an identical list of all mandate holders collaborating, and the focus of the summarized allegation and government response may differ from communication to communication depending on the focus of the mandate holder at hand. Therefore, since many joint communications were not recorded as pure duplicates, we deemed it necessary to account for all communications logged by special procedures during this period. Similarly, state responses were counted as they were recorded in special procedure communications documents. 51 Facts and Figures 2009, p. 10, available at
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights 21 communication should not be exclusively generate positive movement by a state toward based on reports disseminated by mass me- addressing the underlying violation. Several dia.”52 Unfortunately, there is no formalized, examples stand out, as illustrated in the sum- consistent procedure for cataloguing corre- mary of state replies found below and in the spondence received from parties requesting Appendix. In terms of a state’s timeliness and intervention by the Special Procedures; each quality of response, however, this mechanism rapporteur ultimately has the discretion to has a generally disappointing record of influ- decide which allegations to act upon. There- ence on the state concerned. fore, it is impossible to determine how many appeals for action the Special Procedures re- 31. Of the total 8,713 communications issued by ceive on an annual basis or to determine what 17 thematic mandate holders between 2004 percentage of requests is acted upon. The and 2008 (not counting the Working Groups treaty bodies, on the other hand, have a for- on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances mal procedure for the submission of individ- and on Arbitrary Detentions), a majority of ual complaints and formal criteria for deter- communications (58.56%) received no or im- mining admissibility. In 2009, treaty bodies material responses by states, making impact received 9,900 pieces of correspondence, of assessment virtually impossible. which only 110 were considered admissible individual complaints.53 32. Over the same five-year period for the same 17 mandates, responses that demonstrated 29. Communications by SPs generally take the governments took steps to address the under- form of letters of allegation or urgent appeals lying allegation or initiated concrete action to that are transmitted to the state involved via determine the validity of the allegation repre- its diplomatic mission in Geneva. Urgent ap- sented 18.31% of responses. A slightly higher peals alert state authorities to time-sensitive number, 21%, represented responses in which and life-threatening violations of an ongoing the government rejected the substance of the or imminent nature while letters of allega- violation without indicating what steps were tion convey information of a past incident of taken to investigate the underlying claim. lesser urgency. They serve an important role in establishing a written record of victims’ 33. These trends vary in notable ways across the complaints and putting them into appropri- five official U.N. regional groups, with some ate government channels. Human rights de- exceptions. The Africa group, recipient of 20% fenders complain, however, that they do not of all communications, had the highest rate of receive confirmation from OHCHR that their no or immaterial responses with 73.16%, and correspondence has been registered or what, the lowest rate of responses that indicated if any, action was taken by the SP in response. actions taken to address the allegation with only 7% in this category. The Eastern Eu- 30. As further detailed below, in a fair number rope Group (EEG)—recipients of only 6.4% of cases, the SP communications process does of communications—maintained the lowest
52 HRC Code of Conduct, Article 9 (d) and (e). 53 OHCHR 2009 Report, Activities and Results, p. 12, available at
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights 22 Overall Score Breakdown of Communications Recorded 2004-2008
Mandate Total # NR IM NR/IM VR RI ST RI/ST in subtotal subtotal 35 16 2 18 4 9 4 13 0 ED 100% 45.7% 5.7% 51.4% 11.4% 25.7% 11.4% 37.1% 0.0% 126 64 15 79 15 24 6 30 2 FOOD 100% 50.8% 11.9% 62.7% 11.9% 19.1% 4.8% 23.8% 1.6% 2,191 1,187 141 1,328 521 248 31 279 63 FRDX 100% 54.2% 6.4% 60.6% 23.8% 11.3% 1.4% 12.7% 2.9% 148 80 7 87 29 18 11 29 3 HLTH 100% 54.1% 4.7% 58.8% 19.6% 12.2% 7.4% 19.6% 2.0% 137 75 12 87 14 23 5 28 8 HOUSE 100% 54.7% 8.8% 63.5% 10.2% 16.8% 3.7% 20.4% 5.8% 1,843 924 163 1,087 395 275 36 311 50 HRD 100% 50.1% 8.8% 59.0% 21.4% 14.9% 2.0% 16.9% 2.7% 610 316 30 346 129 74 33 107 28 IJL 100% 51.8% 4.9% 56.7% 21.2% 12.1% 5.4% 17.5% 4.6% 232 108 20 128 28 53 23 76 0 IND 100% 46.6% 8.6% 55.2% 12.1% 22.8% 9.9% 32.8% 0.0% 135 62 11 73 26 29 7 36 0 MIG 100% 45.9% 8.2% 54.1% 19.3% 21.5% 5.2% 26.7% 0.0% 79 38 6 44 11 20 4 24 0 RACE 100% 48.1% 7.6% 55.7% 13.9% 25.3% 5.1% 30.4% 0.0% 320 133 21 154 87 52 18 70 9 RINT 100% 41.6% 6.6% 48.1% 27.2% 16.3% 5.6% 21.9% 2.8% 124 65 14 79 12 18 15 33 0 SALE 100% 52.4% 11.3% 63.7% 9.7% 14.5% 12.1% 26.6% 0.0% 678 343 51 394 94 149 38 187 3 SUMX 100% 50.6% 7.5% 58.1% 13.9% 22.0% 5.6% 27.6% .4% 1,563 777 136 913 370 216 51 267 13 TOR 100% 49.7% 8.7% 58.4% 23.7% 13.8% 3.3% 17.1% 0.8% 21 7 3 10 2 6 3 9 0 TOX 100% 33.3% 14.3% 47.6% 9.5% 28.6% 14.3% 42.9% 0.0% 49 24 2 26 8 11 4 15 0 TRAF 100% 49.0% 4.1% 53.1% 16.3% 22.5% 8.2% 30.6% 0.0% 424 202 48 250 83 65 17 82 9 VAW 100% 47.6% 11.3% 59.0% 19.6% 15.3% 4.0% 19.3% 1.2% 8,715 4,421 682 5,103 1,828 1,290 306 1,596 188 Total 100% 50.7% 7.8% 58.6% 21.0% 14.8% 3.5% 18.3% 2.2%
KEY: NR - No Response RI - Responsive but Incomplete IM - Immaterial Response ST - Steps Taken to Address Allegation VR - Violation Rejected without Substantiation in - In translation For further Information on scoring, please see Appendix H. For clarification regarding mandates, please see list of Abbreviations on page ix.
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights 23 Regional Score Breakdown e Total # NR IM NR/IM VR RI ST RI/ST in Asia 4,216 48.3% 9.2% 57.5% 28.1% 10.2% 2.4% 12.6% 3.8% Africa 1,763 68.7% 4.4% 73.2% 19.6% 5.1% 1.8% 6.9% 0.3% GRULAC 1,582 49.9% 7.5% 57.5% 8.6% 29.3% 4.6% 33.9% 0.1% WEOG 563 34.6% 12.1% 56.7% 18.3% 22.9% 12.1% 35.0% 0.0% EEG 561 32.1% 4.6% 36.7% 25.3% 29.1% 4.8% 33.9% 4.1% non state 28 32.1% 10.7% 42.9% 0.0% 50.0% 7.1% 57.1% 0.0% TOTAL 8,713 5 0.7% 7.8% 58.6% 21.0% 14.8% 3.5% 18.3% 2.2%
KEY: NR - No Response RI - Responsive but Incomplete IM - Immaterial Response ST - Steps Taken to Address Allegation VR - Violation Rejected without Substantiation in - In translation For further Information on scoring, please see Appendix H. For clarification regarding abbreviations, please see list on page ix.
rate of no or immaterial responses with only 34. The data also reveals some notable differ- 36.72% in this category. Together, Western ences in the way democracies and non-de- Europe and Others Group (WEOG), EEG, mocracies respond to SP communications. and Latin America and Caribbean Group Democratic governments for this purpose are (GRULAC) had the highest rate of communi- defined as those states invited to participate cations that indicated some government ac- in the Ministerial Conference of the Com- tion taken with scores of 35%, 34%, and 34% munity of Democracies (CD) held in Lisbon, respectively.54 The breakdown of GRULAC’s Portugal in 2009, with non-democracies de- responses is particularly noteworthy. By far, fined as all those not making the list of invit- this regional group maintains the lowest rate ed participants.56 Democratic governments of unsubstantiated rejections with only 8.6% have a significantly higher positive response in this category. Yet, states in this group carry rate to SP communications and a lower rate the second largest no or immaterial response of non-replies. Specifically, CD governments rate with 57.4%—a tie in this category with achieve a combined score of 28% in the Steps the Asia group, the largest recipient of com- Taken and Responsive but Incomplete cat- munications.55 egories, while non-democracies score 11%.
54 The Africa and Asia Groups are each composed of 53 member states; GRULAC has 33 member states; WEOG is made up of 29 member states, including for this study’s purpose Israel and the United States; and EEG maintains 23. 55 When non state actors are considered when analyzing responsiveness, they carry the lowest rate of no or immaterial responses with 42.8% and the highest rate of responsive communications with 57.14%. In no case did a non state actor unsubstantially or categorically deny the allegation. 56 The Community of Democracies is the only global intergovernmental forum of democratic governments aimed at fostering cooperation to strengthen and support democratic development. The Convening Group that organizes their meetings invites governments to biennial ministerial meetings based on a set of criteria drawn from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international standards. For more information on the Community of Democracies, see
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights 24 Breakdown of Government Replies to Communications Democracies/Non-Democracies (2004-2008)
Democracies Non-Democracies 347 335 10 7% 10% <1% 517 15%
1,312 26% 2,749 53% 1,670 773 47% 22%
516 10% 203 177 102 6% 3% 2%
No Response Immaterial Response Violation Rejected Without Substantiation Responsive but Incomplete Steps Taken to Address Allegation In Translation
Non-replies vary between 47% for democra- received within one to two months, and cies and 53% for non-democracies. 43.5% were received in the two to six month range. Cumulatively, 81% of governments 35. By isolating all 4,248 communications that that responded did so within six months of received responses from governments, we receiving the communication. Correspond- learned that it takes an average 124 days for ingly, within each response (quality) cat- a mandate holder to receive a response. On egory, the most frequent response time was the low end, there are a few dozen cases of two to six months: 42% of all responses that same day replies; on the longer end, it can rejected the violation without substantia- take years. Bangladesh, for example, took tion were received in this range while 47% six years to respond to two communica- of all responses that indicated government tions sent by the Special Rapporteur on the action fell in this range. Interestingly, those Sale of Children in 2004. Of all commu- responses that presented immaterial infor- nications that received responses, 17.35% mation did not follow this trend—48% were were received within 30 days, 20.2% were received within two months.
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights 25 Amount of Time Between Sending a A month later, the government responded to the Communication and Receiving a Response Special Representative’s urgent appeal, explaining that three weeks after receiving the communica- (2004-2008) tion the King issued a directive ordering the re- 510 lease of all persons arrested in the incident.58 12% 253 6% 42 1% Holding Violators Accountable in India 737 17% In May 2007, the Special Representative for hu- man rights defenders sent a letter of allegation on behalf of an LGBT activist in India who had been forcefully held in a police station and subjected 1,848 to verbal and sexual assault. The government of 44% 858 India responded to the letter in November of the 20% same year, explaining that while no complaint had been filed by the alleged victim, the Office of Less than 30 days 6 months - 1 year the Superintendent of Police led an inquiry and 1 - 2 months 1 - 2 years discovered misbehavior by two officers. Depart- 2 - 6 months more than 2 years mental action was underway at the time of send- ing the communication.59 36. Some examples of communications that re- ceived scores reflecting that steps were taken Protecting Protestors in Brazil in response to the allegation include:57 In April 2008, the Special Rapporteurs on free- Freeing Human Rights Defenders from Prison dom of expression, housing and human rights in Bahrain defenders sent a letter of allegation to the govern- ment of Brazil on behalf of a human rights pro- In November 2004, the then SRSG on human testor attacked during a demonstration against rights defenders sent an urgent appeal to the the building of a dam and the subsequent dis- Kingdom of Bahrain on behalf of two human placement of local communities by the project. rights defenders who worked with an organiza- The government responded in October of the tion dedicated to helping victims of torture. In same year confirming the facts of the attack and October they were arrested and detained with a explaining that the victim had received medical dozen others for participating in a peaceful pro- treatment and that the perpetrator had been ar- test calling on authorities for a prisoner’s release. rested and indicted.60
57 All examples are taken directly from communications documents annexed to annual reports submitted by Special Procedures to the Human Rights Council or Special Procedures Bulletins available on the OHCHR website. 58 Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights defenders, Summary of cases transmitted to Governments and replies received, March 16, 2005, pp. 16-17. U.N. Doc: E/CN.4/2005/101/Add/1. 59 Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights defenders, Summary of cases transmitted to Governments and replies received, March 5, 2008, p. 209. U.N. Doc: AHRC/7/28/Add.1. 60 Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Summary of cases transmitted to Governments and replies received, May 27, 2009, pp. 60-61. U.N. Doc: A/HRC/11/4/Add.1. 61 Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression pp. 140-141. U.N. Doc:A/HRC/11/4/Add.1.
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights 26 Protecting Journalists from Intimidation in the 1991-1995 civil war in the former Yugoslavia. Croatia Within three months, the government replied to the communication confirming the facts. After In December 2008, the Special Rapporteurs on conducting a criminal investigation, it was con- human rights defenders and freedom of expres- firmed that a police officer was the perpetrator sion sent an urgent appeal to the government of of the threats alleged. He was suspended from Croatia regarding a journalist who had received his work and disciplinary actions were instituted several death threats because of his investigative against him.61 reporting on alleged war crimes committed in
Working Groups: Specialized pointed to this geographic diversity as a particu- Working Methods, Better Results? lar asset, explaining that it is much more difficult for hostile governments to justify noncompli- There are currently four thematic Working ance by claiming that these special procedures Groups operating in the system of Special Pro- are beholden to a regional group or individual cedures: on African descent, on arbitrary de- sponsor. On the other hand, having five mem- tention, on enforced or involuntary disappear- bers from each region can complicate collabo- ances, and the Working Group on the use of ration, communication, and consensus. They mercenaries as a means of impeding the exer- may speak different languages, must coordinate cise of the right of peoples to self-determination schedules and time zones to communicate, and (Mercenaries). While these mandates serve the travel long distances to meet in-person. In spite same general purpose of promoting and pro- of these challenges and pursuant to their re- tecting human rights as the individual rappor- spective themes, the Working Groups have de- teurs and experts, their working methods differ, veloped distinct working methods to promote and therefore deserve separate consideration. and protect human rights. For the purpose of this study, the Working Groups on Arbitrary Working Groups include five members, one Detention and on Enforced and Involuntary from each of the five U.N. regional groups, Disappearances—two of the oldest mandates one of whom serves as Chairperson-Rappor- in the system and with a well-documented re- teur. In several interviews, U.N. experts, NGO cord of activity—were subject to quantitative representatives, and government officials analysis.62
61 Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression pp. 140-141. U.N. Doc:A/HRC/11/4/Add.1. 62 The Working Group on African Descent neither publicizes nor documents a communications or complaints procedure and was hence omitted from quantitative analysis. Established in 2002 after the 2001 Durban World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, the Group is mandated to “study the problems of racial discrimination faced by people of African descent living in the Diaspora and to this end gather all relevant information from Governments, non-governmental organizations and other relevant sources, including through holding public meetings with them.” To execute its mandate, the Group submits annual reports to the Human Rights Council, conducts country visits, and convenes a five-day meeting annually. For more information on the Working Group on African Descent, see:
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights 27 Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and the government.67 The Group transmits its opinion to the government with recommenda- Established in 1991, the Working Group on Ar- tions and sends it to the source three weeks later; bitrary Detention (WGAD) is mandated to in- opinions are also published in the annex of the vestigate individual allegations of deprivation of WGAD’s annual report to the Council. liberty, generate information on arbitrary deten- tion to help states prevent or stem the practice, This thorough, consultative process has pro- and report annually to the Human Rights Coun- duced positive results and the highest response cil.63 To carry out these tasks the Group has de- rates of all special procedures examined in veloped four primary working methods. First, it this report. However, because the process is investigates individual cases to evaluate whether time consuming and opinions can only be is- or not international legal norms have been vio- sued when all five members are together, less lated.64 Second, the Group formulates “delibera- than fifty are issued annually. The quantitative tions” on general matters to help develop consis- analysis of states’ cooperation with the Work- tent principles. Third, it sends an “urgent action” ing Group was based on its considerations of in cases where a person’s health or life is at grave individual cases and opinions issued in reports risk, and fourth, the Group conducts country published from 2004 to 2008. During this time visits to establish direct dialogue with govern- period, the WGAD issued 189 opinions to 58 ment officials and civil society.65 countries. Governments failed to respond to cases only 20% of the time—remarkably lower When considering an individual case, the Group than the over 50% non-reply rates to individual first reviews a communication received from a mandate holders. In 8% of cases, governments complainant and transmits it to the government provided immaterial responses. Governments in question, requesting comments within 90 days. were responsive to allegations in 25% of cases The government response, if any, is sent to the and in 27% of the cases the government indi- complainant for comment. The Group then is- cated that the individual in question had been sues an opinion to determine whether or not the released, without a finding that the detention detention is arbitrary. 66 In this sense, the Group was arbitrary. Governments rejected the allega- helps facilitate dialogue between the complainant tion outright in 20% of cases.
63 Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Fact Sheet No. 26, The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, par III (B). For full document, see:
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights 28 Response rates across regions vary in notable in 1980 to assist relatives to ascertain the fate ways. The Asia group, recipient of 52% of all and whereabouts of their disappeared family.69 cases, had the highest rate of responses that re- To carry out its mandate, the WGEID engages jected the violation with 30% in this category. in four principal working methods. First, it The Africa group, recipients of 17% of cases, transmits individual cases to governments for had the highest no response rate with 27% of clarification, acting as a channel of communica- cases in this category. The Latin America and tion between victims’ families and governments. Caribbean Group (GRULAC) received 10% of Second, it meets three times annually to make cases over the five-year period and had the low- decisions on cases and transmit them to the gov- est rate of no response with 5% in this category ernment in question. Third, it conducts country and the highest rate of released individuals, visits to establish dialogue with government and with 50% in this group. The Eastern European NGO officials on the ground. And, fourth, the Group (EEG) received the smallest number of WGEID reports to the Council annually to pres- cases, representing only 4% of the caseload but ent its findings and cases. In addition to these maintained the highest rate of responsive replies major activities, the group has been tasked, since with 50% of responses indicating some govern- 1992, with monitoring state compliance with the ment action to address the violation. The West- U.N. Declaration on the Protection of All Per- ern Europe and Others Group (WEOG) group sons from Enforced Disappearances and report- received 17% of the caseload and presented the ing on progress.70 lowest percentage of responses that rejected the allegations outright, with only 3% in this cate- When considering an individual case, the gory. While the Group sent cases to 58 govern- WGEID acts on information received. Those that ments over the five years, 56% of the caseload pass standards of admissibility are forwarded to was directed to ten governments. China, the governments with a request for investigation and United States, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Mexico to keep the WGEID apprised of developments. were the top five recipients of cases with 20, 18, Any replies from governments are sent to the 16, 13, and eight cases received respectively over source for comment and if the source challenges the five-year period.68 the government’s submission, this information is re-sent to the government before the Group The Working Group on Enforced or considers the case clarified, closed, or discon- Involuntary Disappearances tinued. A case is considered clarified when the source fails to respond to the government reply The Working Group on Enforced or Involun- within six months or when the source challenges tary Disappearances (WGEID) was established the government responses on grounds that are
68 The next five recipients from 2004-2008 were Myanmar with seven cases and Algeria, Colombia, Egypt, and Iraq with six each. In a study conducted by Jared Genser & Margaret Winterkorn-Meikle, the top ten recipient countries similarly made up 48% of the WGAD’s caseload from 1992-2006 but the distribution differed. In their analysis, the top ten recipients were: Peru, China, Cuba, Syria, Israel, Vietnam, Myanmar, United States, Tunisia, and Turkey. For more information on data from 1992-2006 see: Jared Genser & Margaret Winterkorn- Meikle, “The Intersection of Politics and International Law: The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention in Theory and Practice.” 69 Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Fact Sheet No. 6, Rev. 3, The Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, p. 13. For full document, see:
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights 29 considered unreasonable to the WGEID. If the only four percent of cases and in the remaining source challenges the government’s response on two percent of cases governments rejected the reasonable grounds, the information is sent to allegation outright. the government for comment. Cases are con- sidered closed when national authorities, with Regionally, the Asia group received 51% of all concurrence of the relatives of the disappeared, communications and maintained a lower than pronounces the individual deceased, and cases average no response rate with 35% in this cate- are considered discontinued in the rare sce- gory. The Africa group, recipients of 26% of the nario that family does not wish to pursue the communications, maintained the highest rate of case or when the source is no longer able to fol- no responses with 63%. GRULAC, WEOG, and low up on the case and WGEID’s efforts to es- EEG received 17%, 3%, and 2% of communica- tablish alternative channels of communication tions respectively. With only nine communica- have proved unsuccessful. According to the tions received over the five-year period, WEOG WGEID, it has received more than 50,000 indi- maintained the highest rate of responses that vidual cases in more than 80 countries since its rejected a violation outright with 22% in this inception in 1980. Only 20% of these cases have category. The top ten recipients of communica- been clarified by governments in question.71 It tions—Colombia, Algeria, Nepal, Philippines, follows up regularly with governments that Russian Federation, Sudan, India, Thailand, Sri maintain outstanding cases, sending annual re- Lanka, and Indonesia—made up 55% of the minders of all cases that haven’t been clarified caseload over the five-year period. However, and semi-annual reminders regarding urgent since letters can contain more than one indi- actions that remain unclarified. vidual allegation, this list does not necessarily reflect the countries that received the most al- When examining the WGEID, the project con- legations of individual disappearances. sidered individual cases sent to governments from 2004-2008. In many of these cases, resub- While the response rates from governments missions of cases sent in previous years were in- leave much to be desired, the Working Groups’ cluded. Over the five-year period, the WGEID annual statistical reporting and systematic and sent 269 communications to 59 governments. transparent follow-up should be considered A given communication could contain one or a good practice. In each annual report, the hundreds of individual allegations. In 44% of WGEID presents an aggregate figure of total cases, the government provided no response cases clarified and unclarified by each govern- whatsoever while in 32% of cases, WGEID in- ment. Of those cases that have been clarified, dicated that information from the government the WGEID indicates whether the source or the had been received, but without sufficient de- government provided the clarifying informa- tail in the summary to determine to which al- tion. Without greater accountability of member legation the response was directed. In 18% of states for failing to clarify the thousands of cases cases, the government provided an immaterial of disappearances still pending, however, im- response. Governments indicated that some ac- provement is unlikely. tion had been taken to address the allegation in
71 Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Fact Sheet No. 6, Rev. 3, p. 77.
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights 30 Demanding Justice for Victims of Torture in Egypt million was spent on Special Procedures—a mere seven percent of total spending.73 If these In April 2004, the Special Rapporteur on Torture costs were divided evenly among the 39 Spe- and Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Ex- cial Procedures that year, this would amount ecutions sent a letter to the government of Egypt to only $280,000 allocated on average for each on behalf of a detainee arrested on suspicion of mandate. Of the $11 million spent on Special membership in an illegal organization, who was Procedures, $7.3 million came from the regu- tortured in custody and died in transit from the lar U.N. budget and $3.9 million came from police station to the hospital. The government extra-budgetary donations in the form of confirmed the facts and explained that the De- voluntary contributions. Nearly half of extra- partment of Public Prosecutions charged a police budgetary donations are spent on OHCHR officer and sergeant with torture causing death.72 field presences, another 14% is allocated to the Humanitarian Trust Funds, and only four 37. While it is alarming that more than half of percent is spent on Special Procedures.74 communications go unanswered by states, it is important to note that a government’s fail- 39. The HRC’s independent experts work on a ure to respond in writing does not indicate volunteer basis, with reimbursement only for that the communication has no effect. Gov- travel-related expenses (travel costs, per diem ernment officials, NGO representatives, and and a 40 percent supplemental for two coun- Special Procedures themselves have asserted try visits a year plus travel three times a year to that some communications have prompted Geneva and one trip to New York if required action on a matter even though the govern- to report to the General Assembly). OHCHR ment provided no official written response. resources available to support thematic SPs cover on average only one staff person for Resources each mandate, further limiting their ability to carry out their functions; country-specific 38. Although the level of support provided to rapporteurs get even less staff support. Actual the Special Procedures has improved signifi- allocated resources vary according to a needs cantly over the last ten years, severely limited assessment of such elements as a rapporteur’s resources for the SPs’ work continues to be a workplan, volume of communications and chronic weakness that clearly undermines the extraordinary circumstances (like the earth- effectiveness of this mechanism. According to quake disaster in Haiti). Given the heavy de- the 2009 OHCHR Annual Report, of the of- mands of taking on a position with virtually fice’s $158.8 million in spending that year, $11 no compensation, some qualified experts may
72 Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Summary of Information, including cases transmitted to Governments and replies received, March 30, 2005, pp 123-124. U.N. Doc: E/CN.4/2005/62/Add.1. 73 OHCHR Annual Report on Activities and Results, 2009, p. 19, available at
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights 31 be dissuaded from presenting their candida- to or experience with external donors are able cies, withdraw early from service, or curtail to raise additional resources from such do- their activities to meet the demands of their nors (generally from the North and West) or principal professional positions. leverage resources from their home institu- tions to meet these needs; other rapporteurs 40. Some states and a small group of non-govern- may not have the same possibilities, raising mental donors earmark their contributions to questions regarding equity and effectiveness. OHCHR for certain purposes or mandates, There is a lack of transparency regarding such thereby limiting OHCHR’s flexibility in al- extra-UN system resources, even among the locating funds according to need. According relevant OHCHR staff, raising concerns of to the OHCHR Annual Report, 11 states al- accountability. locate funds directly to support the Subpro- gram for Human Rights Thematic Fact-Find- Joint Activities and Coordination among ing Procedures.75 OHCHR was unwilling to Special Procedures disclose exactly how and to which mandates these states earmark their funds. Earmark- 43. Special Procedures mandate holders are in- ing funds directly to a mandate holder has creasing coordination among themselves as obvious benefits for the recipient but raises demonstrated by the steady rise of joint let- difficult problems regarding equity across ters of allegation, urgent appeals and press re- the range of different mandates. The lack leases, and even joint country visits.76 Prior to of transparency about funding sources and 2008, barely half of all communications were allocations also raises questions about who is sent jointly by two or more mandate hold- supporting which mandates and what, if any, ers. In 2008 and 2009, joint communications influence they have on their work. made up 66% of all communications.77 Of communications studied for this report sent 41. Another challenge faced by mandate holders from 2004 to 2008, joint communications and OHCHR is the growing number of new made up nearly 73% of the volume. The only thematic mandates, joint field missions and ad mandate holder that sent more than 50% of hoc fact-finding panels established by the HRC communications individually was the Spe- but with no funding. These unfunded man- cial Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion, who dates increasingly compete with existing man- over the five-year period sent 52% of commu- dates for scarce financial and time resources. nications alone. Differently than OHCHR’s count, our figures show that joint communi- 42. Although mandates have different needs to be cations have remained at a steady 70% since effective, some mandate holders with access 2004 with a spike to 83% in 2009.78
75 OHCHR Annual Report 2009, p. 196. The 11 states are Spain, Norway, Germany, United Kingdom, Canada, Finland, Ireland, Russian Federation, Belgium, Japan, and Austria. 76 Since 2006, there have been four joint visits to states in three regions. Before 2006, the only joint visit recorded was to East Timor by the SR on Executions, Torture, and Violence Against Women. In 2006, the SRSG on IPDPs, the SR on Housing, and the SR on Health visited Israel and Lebanon. In 2006 the Special Procedures on Racism and Minority Issues visited the Dominican Republic. In 2008, the Special Procedures on Violence against Women and Torture visited the Republic of Moldova, and in 2009 the Special Procedures on Water and Extreme Poverty visited Bangladesh. For a full list of country visits conducted by Special Procedures, see:
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights 32 44. In this work they are facilitated by the responses by states that do reply, however, OHCHR’s maintenance of a Quick Response does not seem to relate to whether the com- Desk which centralizes incoming information munication was sent jointly. If anything, to the mandate holders and processes com- communications sent by one Special Proce- munications sent. This enhanced coordinated dure alone have a slightly better track record action appears to have the effect of improving of garnering a positive state response than efficiency and facilitating joint action among joint communications.79 rapporteurs. It also has the effect of increasing the attention paid by national governments 45. Regular communications among the Special and other actors to the problems raised in the Procedures, highlighted by the annual meet- communications. For instance, communica- ing of the Special Procedures, are an effec- tions sent jointly have a lower rate of no or tive way to exchange lessons learned, tackle immaterial responses (58%) than communi- common challenges and raise professional cations sent by one mandate holder alone in standards. The need for greater coordination these same categories (63%). The quality of among the Special Procedures was one of the
Joint Communications Individual Communications Score Breakdown (2004-2008) Score Breakdown (2004-2008) 483 8% 199 909 8% 14% 380 197 16% 3% 1,270 55% 108 3,149 5% 50% 1,474 23% 355 15% 157 30 2% 1%
No Response Immaterial Response Violation Rejected Without Substantiation Responsive but Incomplete Steps Taken to Address Allegation In Translation
79 Of all responses to joint communications, 17% were scored in the Responsive but Incomplete and Steps Taken categories while 21% of solo communications were in these categories. Similarly, 23% of joint communications received a Violation Rejected score versus only 15% of solo communications. Responses scored as Immaterial were the same for both types of communications.
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights 33 many conclusions of the Vienna Conference states for improving their working methods. on Human Rights in 1993 and led to the cre- Persistent objections to the way in which the ation of the annual meeting the following year SPs exercise their independence led in 2007 and, in 2005, to the establishment of a Special to a Code of Conduct for Special Procedures Procedures Coordination Committee. The sponsored by the Africa Group and adopted Committee’s main function is to facilitate co- as part of the Human Rights Council’s institu- ordination among the rapporteurs and to act tion building package. The Code of Conduct as a bridge between them and the OHCHR, serves as a way to supervise and regulate the the broader U.N. human rights system, and rapporteurs but contains no procedure for civil society.80 The Committee played a criti- handling specific allegations. Instead, com- cal role in forging common positions during plaints tend to get aired during interactive the UNGA debate on creation of the HRC dialogues with SPs or in other venues. and in the negotiations of the institution- building package and had a direct impact in 48. While some experts consider the Code of Con- removing the most onerous provisions of the duct a useful step toward greater professional- draft Code of Conduct in 2007. ization of the Special Procedures, others say it has had a chilling effect on their ability (and 46. In an attempt to formalize and manage com- of OHCHR staff) to speak out clearly against plaints by some states of SPs violating the violations. This problem appears to have Code of Conduct, the Committee created an worsened due to recent incidents of member Internal Advisory Procedure to Review Prac- states’ hostile attacks against certain mandate tices and Working Methods in June 2008. holders for allegedly stepping outside their A tool for self-regulation, the procedure al- mandates, a tactic some states use to avoid lows the body to examine information about responding to the substance of the concerns a mandate holder’s conduct confidentially raised by the Special Procedures. Avenues to and to determine what further guidance or address complaints by states, like the Internal corrective action should be taken. Informa- Advisory Procedure to Review Practices and tion is then submitted to the President of the Working Methods managed by the SP Coor- Council.81 Despite the valuable role played dination Committee, are generally ignored by the Coordination Committee in this and in favor of using the bully pulpit of Council other aspects, and that it was recognized by sessions when mandate holders only have five the Council in a 2008 presidential statement, minutes to reply to all state commentary. some states claim it lacks legal standing and, therefore, do not grant it the recognition it Training deserves. 49. Mandate holders, upon assuming their po- Code of Conduct sitions, receive basic orientation and train- ing in Geneva on the administrative, media 47. Special Procedures are challenged by growing relations and support structure provided by and at times hostile demands from member OHCHR. They also get acquainted with the
80 See Manual of Procedures, paras. 109-114. 81 See Internal Advisory Procedure to Review Practices and Working Methods, Coordination Committee of Special Procedures, 25 June 2008, available at
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights 34 SP Code of Conduct, which contains an oath 52. The UPR rocess,p according to a range of in- they must sign, and the Manual of Proce- terlocutors at the national and international dures. They generally do not receive, howev- level, has been a net positive for the cause er, skills-based political training from former of promoting human rights. In its first three and current mandate holders and other sea- years, it has achieved something no other soned practitioners. part of the U.N. human rights system has achieved: 100 percent participation of mem- 50. Starting in the fall of 2009, the SP Coordi- ber states. It has elevated the subject of hu- nation Committee, with the assistance of man rights on the agenda of national govern- OHCHR, began offering an induction pro- ments with most delegations coming well- gram for new mandate holders that includes prepared substantively after inter-ministerial a session to hear lessons learned from cur- deliberations; some are led by cabinet-level rent or former SPs. Yet no written materials delegations composed of officials from a exist on the political and diplomatic tools of range of ministries. Civil society represen- the trade as learned by seasoned practitio- tatives are invited to engage in the process ners in the system. This means that mandate through both written submissions, available holders appointed out of cycle and unable to publicly on the OHCHR website, and in the attend the annual training miss out on this final session in which the report is adopted; important opportunity. Surprisingly, many some states have actively reached out to do- outgoing rapporteurs do not sit down pri- mestic groups for input to their official re- vately with their successors to share the les- ports and in many cases domestic and inter- sons learned from their term in office, either national NGOs have used the sessions as an for lack of time and resources or personal advocacy and education tool for their cam- inclination to avoid encumbering the new paigns. Proceedings are webcast live, allow- rapporteur with past practice, or vice versa. ing unprecedented global access to official Further compounding the uneven transition Geneva. On the negative side, some states between mandate holders, OHCHR staff are have manipulated the process to ensure that routinely rotated in and out of assignments, only soft questions or even praise are offered. undermining continuity and institutional NGOs are not permitted to make their case memory. in person during the UPR review session and many struggle to find funding for additional Universal Periodic Review travel to Geneva to advocate in person with delegations and before the full Council. Of 51. When creating the new Human Rights Coun- even greater concern, the quality of recom- cil, the General Assembly decided to establish mendations range widely with some falling the Universal Periodic Review, to review ev- below the standards of international law as ery state once every four years on its record articulated by treaty bodies. of adherence to internationally recognized human rights “based on objective and reli- 53. While the Special Procedures have no formal able information.” Designed as a cooperative, role in the review process, their recommen- state-driven process based on peer-to-peer in- dations are consulted and reflected in the of- teractive dialogue, the review results in a set of ficial public documents prepared by OHCHR recommendations addressed to the state under for each country under review. UPR thus review which may or may not accept them. offers the only institutionalized system of
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights 35 follow-up to the rapporteurs’ country-specific were rejected with the remaining receiving recommendations. It allows a formal oppor- imprecise or no response. Not surprisingly, tunity for their recommendations to be raised the states making SP-related recommenda- if a member state chooses to do so during the tions tended to be those with better records proceedings. Even before the review takes of cooperation with SPs (WEOG, EEG and place, some states feel pressure to improve GRULAC groups), while those receiving such their records by, for example, accepting visit recommendations were from Asia and Afri- requests from Special Procedures or ratifying ca, regions which show a much weaker record or removing reservations from human rights of cooperation with SPs. treaties; others accept such recommendations in the course of the review. Relations with Treaty Bodies
54. During the review itself, states have peti- 55. While governments are strongly encouraged tioned other states to improve cooperation to cooperate with Special Procedures, mem- with Special Procedures and in many cases ber states that ratify international human such requests have been accepted. Based on rights treaties are under a specific obliga- a review of UPR recommendations proffered tion to comply with their provisions. Despite through December 2009, member states have this, treaty bodies suffer similar challenges made such requests 263 times. Of these, 106 regarding low levels of state cooperation. recommendations were accepted, while 50 For instance, in 2009, the Human Rights
Recommendations on Special Procedures Recommendations on Special Procedures Made During UPR Received During UPR (2008-2009) (2008-2009)
95 43 25% 11% 29 8% 25 7%
89 149 24% 40% 170 45% 111 29%
40 4 11% <1%
Africa Asia GRULAC EEG WEOG
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights 36 Committee reported that 50 states, of the 164 and find ways to strengthen collaboration. that have ratified the ICCPR, were five or In the infrequent instance that treaty bodies more years overdue in reporting to the Com- conduct country visits, there is evidence that mittee.82 Moreover, of the more than 500 cas- coordination and collaboration with relevant es being monitored by the Committee, only rapporteurs occur.85 For example, in 2003, 67 have received satisfactory responses from the Committee on Elimination of Discrimi- member states. Satisfactory is defined as “the nation against Women visited Mexico to con- willingness of the State party to implement duct an inquiry under its optional protocol. the Committee’s recommendations or to offer According to the report of the committee, the complainant appropriate remedy.”83 work of the Special Procedures on extrajudi- cial, summary or arbitrary executions and on 56. Because the two mechanisms serve comple- the independence of judges and lawyers was mentary functions aimed toward the same considered during the examination period goal—improving a state’s respect for interna- that led to the committee’s decision to make tionally recognized human rights—they are a visit.86 Furthermore, the Special Rapporteur increasingly finding ways to work together.84 on violence against women conducted a visit The Human Rights Committee, for example, to Mexico two years later, citing the commit- which reviews state compliance with the In- tee’s work several times in her mission re- ternational Covenant on Civil and Political port.87 This complementary behavior typifies Rights, regularly consults relevant SP reports Sir Nigel Rodley’s observation that “since nei- and recommendations when considering a ther mechanism has the resources that would state report. The respective chairs of the treaty make follow-up visits practicable, the Special bodies now meet at least annually with the SP Rapporteur’s visit was able to serve as a de Coordination Committee to compare notes facto follow-up to the Committee’s visit.”88
82 Report of the Human Rights Committee, U.N. Doc. A/64/40 (Vol.I), Oct 288-Jul 2009, p. 16. 83 See David Baluarte and Christian M. De Vos, From Judgment to Justice: Implementing International and Regional Human Rights Courts Decisions, Open Society Justice Initiative (2010). 84 For an excellent first-hand account comparing treaty bodies and Special Procedures, see Nigel Rodley, “The United Nations Human Rights Council, Its Special Procedures and Its Relationship with the Treaty Bodies: Complementarity or Competition?” in New Institutions for Human Rights Protection, Kevin Boyle (ed.), (Oxford, OUP, 2009), pp 49-73; see also Jose Luis Gomez del Prado, “Extra-conventional Protection of Human Rights,” in International Human Rights Law in a Global Context, Felipe Gomez Isa and Koen de Feyter (eds.), University of Deusto, Bilbao 2009. 85 The Committee Against Torture (CAT) and the Committee on Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) are the two treaty bodies that are mandated to conduct country visits to states that have ratified the optional protocols. 86 Report on Mexico produced by the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women under article 8 of the Optional Protocol to the Convention, and reply from the Government of Mexico, p. 4. U.N. Doc: CEDAW/C/2005/OP.8/Mexico. 87 Yakin Erturk, “Integration of the Human Rights of Women and a Gender Perspective: Violence Against Women, Report of the Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women,” Mission to Mexico, January 13, 2006. U.N. Doc: E/CN.4/2006/61/Add.4. 88 Rodley made this observation about his 1998 trip to Turkey as Special Rapporteur on Torture that served as follow-up to the 1993 visit of the Committee against Torture. Nigel Rodley, “The United Nations Human Rights Council, Its Special Procedures and Its Relationship with the Treaty Bodies: Complementarity or Competition?” p. 62.
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights 37 RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations for strengthening the Special Procedures were endorsed by the Experts Working Group listed on page vii.
Appointments more proactively recruit, nominate and support top candidates. 1. The selection process for Special Procedures, while improved, still suffers from a lack of c. Qualified candidates with a diverse life ex- transparency, politicization and apparent perience, including practical knowledge of back-room deals in which experts do not al- politics, communications and diplomacy, ways appear well-matched to their mandates. should be actively recruited. The June 2010 episode in which states like Algeria and India demanded their candidates Country Visits and Communications receive certain mandates and the President of the HRC modified his final list of nominees 2. While there are several positive examples of per demands from the Africa Group and OIC progress in the implementation of internation- further degraded a process that should empha- al human rights norms as a result of the work size expertise, independence and objectivity as of the Special Procedures, the mechanism is the main criteria for selection. severely challenged by member states’ failure to fulfill their obligations to cooperate with a. The Council and the OHCHR should im- the Council and its mechanisms. An endur- prove the selection process by reaching ing resistance to or rejection of perceived in- out early and often to a wide network of tervention in internal affairs, expressed mainly relevant stakeholders, advertising vacan- by states seeking to avoid scrutiny, remains a cies publicly, setting clear deadlines for ap- major obstacle. In other cases, a lack of dip- plications and providing more information lomatic resources allocated to reporting and about each candidate to help states and civil follow-up is a problem. society assess qualifications, experience and suitability for particular mandates. a. All states should cooperate with the Council by issuing standing invitations for country b. Civil society has a special role to play in visits by all Special Procedures, responding identifying qualified candidates with a promptly (within three months) to requests proven track record of expertise in promot- for such visits, agreeing to the dates of a vis- ing and defending human rights and should it within one year of a request, accepting the
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights 38 standard terms of reference for such visits, candidate for membership on the Human and cooperating fully during the visits. Rights Council. Any candidate running for a seat on the Council should demonstrate their b. OHCHR should maintain a public list of qualifications by implementing the above countries that fail to implement standing guidelines as a matter of policy and practice. invitations they have issued in accordance with the criteria above and remove those 3. States with positive records of cooperation with states that reject or do not effectively hon- the Council’s mechanisms should be priority or their standing invitation commitments candidates for technical assistance and other from the list.89 resources from the U.N. system and donors to help them address specific human rights con- c. Likewise, member states should fulfill their cerns. Similarly, states with a record of persis- responsibilities to respond to all SP com- tent lack of cooperation should be brought to munications in a timely and complete man- the attention of the full Human Rights Coun- ner setting forth steps taken to address vio- cil for further discussion. Such lack of coop- lations or providing explanations for failing eration should be critically considered when to do so. In the case of urgent appeals, states states elect members to a seat on the HRC as should respond substantively to the allega- well as during their UPR review. tion within 30 days. For other allegations, states should respond substantively within 4. When selecting which states to visit, Special two months. Procedures, with the assistance of OHCHR, should consider how to maximize the effec- d. The HRC Secretariat should regularly pub- tiveness of their visit by reviewing the seven lish data on each state’s record of respond- factors set forth in paragraph 22 above, par- ing to SP communications and reports, the ticularly the questions of timing, civil society quality of the state’s response (as a few rap- participation, independent media and U.N. porteurs do now), and more details on the country team contributions. It is critical that status of requests to visit. Civil society and they make proper preparations for their visit states should use such data to evaluate can- by contacting a wide range of stakeholders didates for election to the Human Rights in the country concerned in advance of their Council, keeping in mind the General As- visit. A questionnaire sent in advance of the sembly’s directive that all members “shall visit to key actors would help illuminate the fully cooperate with the Council.” most pressing issues, identify the most relevant parties for direct interviews and educate the e. States should use a government’s record of mandate holder on the political context. They cooperation with the Council’s mechanisms, should endeavor to complete their report in a including its responsiveness to SP commu- timely fashion and keep relevant stakeholders nications and requests for country visits, as informed and engaged through wide dissemi- criteria for election and re-election of any nation of the report in the country of concern.
89 Human Rights Watch has suggested distinguishing between the usage of the term “effective” and “ineffective” standing invitations rather than grouping together all states that have issued standing invitations. For a standing invitation to be considered effective, the government making the invitation should respond to requests for visits by special procedures within six months and should actually schedule the visit within two years. For full explanation and text see: Human Rights Watch, Curing the Selectivity Syndrome: The 2011 Review of the Human Rights Council, June 2010, p. 18.
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights 39 5. States should agree to improve the quality contribution they can make toward advanc- of the interactive dialogue with Special Pro- ing human rights at the national level, the cedures, including by allotting more time to absence of any systematic mechanism to each individual mandate-holder for presenta- follow-up on such visits is glaring. The UPR tion of his or her report, holding a separate process offers at least one avenue to recall dialogue on each country mission report, and the recommendations made by the SP but inviting the NHRI of the relevant country to the schedule of reviews only once every four speak after the country concerned. years is entirely insufficient for proper fol- low-up. Similarly, treaty bodies can do more 6. The HRC Secretariat should maintain a public to consult and build upon SP recommenda- database, continuously updated and search- tions. able by country and mandate, where all in- formation about communications and state 10. States, OHCHR, other elements of the U.N. responses can be found. This is particularly system, SPs, national human rights institu- important to victims who are rarely informed tions and civil society can take a number of of the status of the complaints they submit to actions to address this deficit: the SPs. In addition, the SP’s annual report to the Council should include the status of that a. One year after a country visit, SPs should year’s new communications and outstanding write to the state concerned to raise rel- ones, as the Working Group on Enforced and evant issues regarding progress to date Involuntary Disappearances does. Similarly, on the recommendations and request a any individual alleging a human rights viola- progress report within three months to be tion should receive a reply from the relevant submitted to the Council as part of the SP’s rapporteur(s)or their staff acknowledging re- regular reporting. ceipt and indicating what the process for con- sideration entails. b. Outgoing SPs and their staff should be required to brief incoming SPs on the sta- 7. OHCHR should task Special Procedures, tus of pending and recent visits and com- country teams, and itself with tallying how munications as well as concrete ideas for many requests for communications it receives follow-up. on an ongoing basis in order to determine what percentage of complaints is acted upon c. SPs and their staff should prioritize follow- or considered lacking in sufficient detail or up visits to selected states within a 2-3 year credibility. period of the previous visit.
8. Publications of SP communications, reports d. The U.N. Country Team, OHCHR staff and government responses should be avail- in the field, UNHCR personnel and other able in the main languages of the country relevant actors should facilitate follow-up concerned. activities, incorporate the SP’s recommen- dations into their workplans and regularly Follow-up Procedures report back directly to the High Commis- sioner for Human Rights and the relevant 9. Given the significant investment of resources Special Procedure on progress toward ful- devoted to country visits, and the important filling recommendations.
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights 40 e. Human rights and humanitarian NGOs for public and private donors that seek to should work together to follow up on an contribute to the pool of funds available to SP’s visit by monitoring state compliance all mandates. Individual mandate holders with recommendations, carrying out ad- would still be free to fundraise indepen- vocacy campaigns to press for reforms and dently. keeping SPs regularly informed of prob- lems and progress. 12. Mandate holders should receive an annual research honoraria or stipend to compensate Resources them for mandate-related research expenses incurred in the course of preparing country 11. To address the chronic under-funding of the visits, thematic and country reports and fol- Special Procedures, expand flexibility and re- low-up communications with stakeholders. duce inequities, member states in partnership Such funds could be spent at the discretion with OHCHR should: of the expert to support research staff in their home institutions, organize and attend the- a. Increase funding so that each mandate matic seminars or undertake follow-up ac- holder is able to visit at least three coun- tivities at the national or regional level. tries each year and has at least two full- time professional OHCHR staff dedicated 13. Other U.N. agencies who work on similar is- to their mandate. sues to particular mandates should expend resources to support the work of the Special b. Continue to reduce earmarking of contri- Rapporteurs through direct financial support butions to specific mandates and increase to their mandates, assignment of specialized voluntary contributions to the general ac- staff, in-country assistance and funding for count for Special Procedures as a way to follow-up activities. rebalance the distribution of resources across all mandates. 14. Mandate holders able to raise additional re- sources from sources outside the U.N. budget c. Adjust allocation of resources in such a for the effective fulfillment of their mandate way that guarantees a minimum floor of should find ways to share this information funding for each mandate while provid- more widely. ing additional resources for mandates that are particularly time- and labor-intensive Training due to such factors as volume of commu- nications received, follow-up visits and the 15. To support further professionalization and emergency nature of violations. greater effectiveness of the Special Proce- dures, it is essential that they receive addi- d. Create a dedicated fund where Special tional training and guidance before carrying Procedures can apply for added resources out their duties. This should include special for special projects like elaborating stan- instruction from experienced mandate hold- dards, conducting trainings, organizing ers who have invaluable experience handling workshops, etc. politically sensitive missions. A panel of for- e. Open a new trust fund account for Spe- mer mandate holders could be charged by the cial Procedures as an additional option Coordination Committee to prepare written
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights 41 materials on the history and lessons learned discussion of an SP’s conduct to the Coordi- of their work with a focus on the diplomatic, nation Committee as early as possible. The political, fundraising and communication High Commissioner’s Office or a small group skills needed to maximize effectiveness on of former mandate holders appointed by the the ground. Coordination Committee could also be in- volved as observers to the Committee’s delib- Code of Conduct erations. Proposals to create a formal “ethics committee” or panel of jurists to handle com- 16. Both member states and Special Procedures plaints of SP’s behavior should be rejected share a set of obligations toward each other as a diversion that would unreasonably oc- and the U.N. system for it to work effectively cupy the SPs’ limited time in a series of po- on behalf of victims. These include a faith- tentially harassing, frivolous and politicized ful adherence by member states to the Code complaint procedures and would undermine of Conduct, including every state’s duty to rather than strengthen the SPs as a body of fully cooperate with the Special Procedures, professional, independent U.N. experts. respect their independence and provide all information requested in a timely manner. Relations with UPR, Treaty Bodies States should refrain from using the Code and other U.N. Human Rights and of Conduct to block scrutiny of their human Humanitarian Actors rights records or to harass and intimidate the mandate holders and should criticize such at- 19. The Special Procedures operate within a larg- tacks when they occur. er international system for promoting and protecting human rights. Much more could 17. If a state wishes to allege a violation of the be done to integrate them further into this Code of Conduct, it should follow the In- framework to maximize effectiveness of their ternal Advisory Procedure to Review Prac- mandates. tices and Working Methods adopted in June 2008 by the Special Procedures Coordination 20. Regarding UPR, country-specific mandate Committee. The Coordination Committee holders should be called upon at all stages of should, in turn, be more transparent with the the relevant country review as subject mat- President of the Council and with states on ter experts. Thematic mandate holders could steps taken to address concerns regarding in- also be asked to participate in reviews of dividual expert’s behavior on mission. In this countries they have recently visited. SP rec- way, all parties involved will have more con- ommendations should continue to be refined fidence in the Special Procedures’ own rules to ensure actionable steps are identified for for self-regulating their activities. the UPR review, as set forth in the Manual of Procedures. SP visits to states could be timed 18. The President of the Council should also to take place within a year of a country’s up- be more pro-active in explicitly recogniz- coming review to maximize attention to re- ing the legal and professional standing of sulting recommendations. the Coordination Committee and support regular consultations between the Commit- 21. Treaty bodies should adopt the practice fol- tee and member states. The President should lowed by the Human Rights Committee of also take the initiative to re-direct Council regularly consulting all relevant SP reports
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights 42 for states under review and raising their rec- ated with the Special Rapporteur on the same ommendations in the course of the review. subject on four project grants to grassroots Haitian NGOs to combat child labor and pro- 22. The Secretary General should require U.N. vide assistance to child domestic workers and Country Teams to incorporate SP recom- their families.90 Similarly, the U.N. Voluntary mendations into their annual workplans and Funds for Victims of Torture, for Indigenous to appoint a focal point in each country team Populations, and for Violence against Women responsible for followup monitoring and re- could be tapped for resources to help states im- porting on state actions to address such rec- plement SP recommendations in those areas. ommendations. A similar effort should be addressed toward mainstreaming SP recom- 24. With the creation of a new Assistant Secre- mendations into activities of U.N. peacekeep- tary General for Human Rights in New York, ing missions. the time is ripe to connect the Special Pro- cedures more directly to key U.N. bodies at 23. OHCHR should spearhead coordination with U.N. headquarters, particularly the Security specialized U.N. voluntary funds to connect Council and the Third Committee. The As- SP recommendations to funding priorities. sistant Secretary General should have as a top This is beginning to happen in an ad hoc way. priority the mission of mainstreaming the For example, the Voluntary Trust Fund on work of the Special Procedures into the ac- Contemporary Forms of Slavery has cooper- tivities of relevant U.N. actors in New York.
90 OHCHR 2009 Report, p. 177.
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights 43 APPENDIX A HRC RESOLUTION 5/1, THE INSTITUTION BUILDING PACKAGE
“1. Welcomes the text entitled ‘United Nations Human Rights Council: Institution‑Building’, as contained in the annex to the present reso- lution, including its appendix(ces).”
9th meeting The Human Rights Council, 18 June 2007
Acting in compliance with the mandate entrusted [Resolution adopted without a vote.]91 to it by the United Nations General Assembly in resolution 60/251 of 15 March 2006, Annex
Having considered the draft text on institution- united nations human rights building submitted by the President of the Coun- council: institution-building cil, II. SPECIAL PROCEDURES 1. Adopts the draft text entitled “United Nations Human Rights Council: Institution‑Building”, A. Selection and appointment of as contained in the annex to the present reso- mandate-holders lution, including its appendix(ces); 39. The following general criteria will be of para- 2. Decides to submit the following draft resolu- mount importance while nominating, se- tion to the General Assembly for its adoption lecting and appointing mandate-holders: (a) as a matter of priority in order to facilitate the expertise; (b) experience in the field of the timely implementation of the text contained mandate; (c) independence; (d) impartiality; thereafter: (e) personal integrity; and (f) objectivity.
“The General Assembly, 40. Due consideration should be given to gender balance and equitable geographic representa- “Taking note of Human Rights Council resolution tion, as well as to an appropriate representa- 5/1 of 18 June 2007, tion of different legal systems.
91 See A/HRC/5/21, chap. III, paras. 60-62.
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights 44 41. Technical and objective requirements for eli- 47. A consultative group would be established to gible candidates for mandate-holders will be propose to the President, at least one month approved by the Council at its sixth session before the beginning of the session in which (first session of the second cycle), in order the Council would consider the selection of to ensure that eligible candidates are highly mandate‑holders, a list of candidates who qualified individuals who possess established possess the highest qualifications for the competence, relevant expertise and extensive mandates in question and meet the general professional experience in the field of human criteria and particular requirements. rights. 48. The consultative group shall also give due 42. The ollowingf entities may nominate candi- consideration to the exclusion of nominated dates as special procedures mandate-holders: candidates from the public list of eligible can- (a) Governments; (b) Regional Groups op- didates brought to its attention. erating within the United Nations human rights system; (c) international organizations 49. At the beginning of the annual cycle of the or their offices (e.g. the Office of the High Council, Regional Groups would be invited to Commissioner for Human Rights); (d) non- appoint a member of the consultative group, governmental organizations; (e) other human who would serve in his/her personal capacity. rights bodies; (f) individual nominations. The Group will be assisted by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. 43. The Office of the High Commissioner for Hu- man Rights shall immediately prepare, main- 50. The consultative group will consider candi- tain and periodically update a public list of dates included in the public list; however, un- eligible candidates in a standardized format, der exceptional circumstances and if a partic- which shall include personal data, areas of ex- ular post justifies it, the Group may consider pertise and professional experience. Upcom- additional nominations with equal or more ing vacancies of mandates shall be publicized. suitable qualifications for the post. Recom- mendations to the President shall be public 44. The principle of non-accumulation of human and substantiated. rights functions at a time shall be respected. 51 The consultative group should take into ac- 45. A mandate-holder’s tenure in a given func- count, as appropriate, the views of stakehold- tion, whether a thematic or country mandate, ers, including the current or outgoing man- will be no longer than six years (two terms of date-holders, in determining the necessary three years for thematic mandate-holders). expertise, experience, skills, and other rel- evant requirements for each mandate. 46. Individuals holding decision-making po- sitions in Government or in any other or- 52. On the basis of the recommendations of the ganization or entity which may give rise to consultative group and following broad con- a conflict of interest with the responsibilities sultations, in particular through the regional inherent to the mandate shall be excluded. coordinators, the President of the Council Mandate‑holders will act in their personal will identify an appropriate candidate for capacity. each vacancy. The President will present to
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights 45 member States and observers a list of candi- 57. Any decision to streamline, merge or possi- dates to be proposed at least two weeks prior bly discontinue mandates should always be to the beginning of the session in which the guided by the need for improvement of the Council will consider the appointments. enjoyment and protection of human rights.
53. If necessary, the President will conduct fur- 58. The Council should always strive for im- ther consultations to ensure the endorsement provements: of the proposed candidates. The appointment of the special procedures mandate-holders (a) Mandates should always offer a clear will be completed upon the subsequent ap- prospect of an increased level of human proval of the Council. Mandate-holders shall rights protection and promotion as well be appointed before the end of the session. as being coherent within the system of human rights; B. Review, rationalization and improvement (b) Equal attention should be paid to all of mandates human rights. The balance of thematic mandates should broadly reflect the ac- 54. The review, rationalization and improve- cepted equal importance of civil, politi- ment of mandates, as well as the creation of cal, economic, social and cultural rights, new ones, must be guided by the principles including the right to development; of universality, impartiality, objectivity and (c) Every effort should be made to avoid un- non‑selectivity, constructive international necessary duplication; dialogue and cooperation, with a view to en- (d) Areas which constitute thematic gaps hancing the promotion and protection of all will be identified and addressed, includ- human rights, civil, political, economic, so- ing by means other than the creation of cial and cultural rights, including the right to special procedures mandates, such as by development. expanding an existing mandate, bringing a cross-cutting issue to the attention of 55. The review, rationalization and improvement mandate-holders or by requesting a joint of each mandate would take place in the con- action to the relevant mandate-holders; text of the negotiations of the relevant reso- (e) Any consideration of merging mandates lutions. An assessment of the mandate may should have regard to the content and take place in a separate segment of the inter- predominant functions of each mandate, active dialogue between the Council and spe- as well as to the workload of individual cial procedures mandate-holders. mandate‑holders; (f) In creating or reviewing mandates, ef- 56. The review, rationalization and improvement forts should be made to identify whether of mandates would focus on the relevance, the structure of the mechanism (expert, scope and contents of the mandates, having rapporteur or working group) is the most as a framework the internationally recog- effective in terms of increasing human nized human rights standards, the system rights protection; of special procedures and General Assembly (g) New mandates should be as clear and spe- resolution 60/251. cific as possible, so as to avoid ambiguity.
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights 46 59. It should be considered desirable to have a holders who have served more than six years uniform nomenclature of mandate-holders, may be extended until the relevant mandate titles of mandates as well as a selection and is considered by the Council and the selection appointment process, to make the whole sys- and appointment process has concluded. tem more understandable. 63. Decisions to create, review or discontinue 60. Thematic mandate periods will be of three country mandates should also take into ac- years. Country mandate periods will be of count the principles of cooperation and gen- one year. uine dialogue aimed at strengthening the ca- pacity of Member States to comply with their 61. Mandates included in Appendix I, where ap- human rights obligations. plicable, will be renewed until the date on which they are considered by the Council ac- 64. In case of situations of violations of human cording to the programme of work.92 rights or a lack of cooperation that require the Council’s attention, the principles of ob- 62. Current mandate-holders may continue serv- jectivity, non-selectivity, and the elimination ing, provided they have not exceeded the of double standards and politicization should six‑year term limit (Appendix II). On an ex- apply. ceptional basis, the term of those mandate-
92 Country mandates meet the following criteria: There is a pending mandate of the Council to be accomplished; or There is a pending mandate of the General Assembly to be accomplished; or The nature of the mandate is for advisory services and technical assistance.
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights 47 APPENDIX B HRC 5/2, CODE OF CONDUCT
Procedures Mandate-holders of the Human the promotion and protection of human rights Rights Council and shall fully cooperate with the Council;
The Human Rights Council, (d) Stressed the importance of “ensuring universal- ity, objectivity and non-selectivity in the con- Guided by the aims and principles of the Charter sideration of human rights issues, and the elim- of the United Nations and the Universal Declara- ination of double standards and politicization”; tion of Human Rights and recognizing the ensu- ing obligations inter alia of States to cooperate in (e) Further recognized that the promotion and promoting universal respect for human rights as protection of human rights “should be based enshrined therein, on the principles of cooperation and genuine dialogue and aimed at strengthening the ca- Recalling the Vienna Declaration and Programme pacity of Member States to comply with their of Action adopted on 25 June 1993 by the World human rights obligations for the benefit of all Conference on Human Rights, human beings”;
Recalling also that in resolution 60/251 of 15 (f) Decided that “the work of the Council shall March 2006, entitled “Human Rights Council”, be guided by the principles of universality, the General Assembly: impartiality, objectivity, and non-selectivity, constructive international dialogue and coop- (a) Reaffirmed that all human rights are universal, eration, with a view to enhancing the promo- indivisible, interrelated, interdependent and tion and protection of all human rights, civil, mutually reinforcing and that all human rights political, economic, social and cultural rights, must be treated in a fair and equal manner on including the right to development”; the same footing and with the same emphasis; (g) Also decided that “the methods of work of (b) Acknowledged that peace and security, devel- the Council shall be transparent, fair and im- opment and human rights are the pillars of the partial and shall enable genuine dialogue, be United Nations system and that they are inter- results-oriented, allow for subsequent follow- linked and mutually reinforcing; up discussions to recommendations and their implementation and also allow for substan- (c) Decided that members elected to the Coun- tive interaction with special procedures and cil shall uphold the highest standards in mechanisms”;
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights 48 Underlining the centrality of the notions of im- special procedures in accordance with paragraph 6 partiality and objectivity, as well as the expertise of General Assembly resolution 60/251, of mandate-holders, within the context of spe- cial procedures, along with the need to give the Noting further resolution 2/1 of 27 November required degree of attention to all human rights 2006, in which the Council requested the Open- violations, wherever they may be taking place, ended Intergovernmental Working Group to “draft a code of conduct regulating the work of Bearing in mind that the efficiency of the system of the special procedures”, special procedures should be reinforced through the consolidation of the status of mandate-hold- Considering that this code of conduct is an inte- ers and the adoption of principles and regulations gral part of the review, improvement and ratio- taking the specificities of their mandate into con- nalization called for in General Assembly resolu- sideration, tion 60/251 that, inter alia, seeks to enhance the cooperation between Governments and man- Considering that it is necessary to assist all stake- date-holders which is essential for the effective holders, including States, national human rights functioning of the system, institutions, non-governmental organizations and individuals, to better understand and support the Considering also that such a code of conduct will activities of mandate-holders, strengthen the capacity of mandate-holders to exercise their functions whilst enhancing their
moral authority and credibility and will require Recalling articles 100, 104, 105 of the Charter of supportive action by other stakeholders, and in the United Nations, section 22 of article VI of the particular by States, Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations of 13 February 1946 and para- Considering further that one should distinguish graph 6 of General Assembly resolution 60/251, between, on the one hand, the independence of
mandate-holders, which is absolute in nature, Noting decision 1/102 of 30 June 2006, in which and, on the other hand, their prerogatives, as cir- the Council decided to extend exceptionally for cumscribed by their mandate, the mandate of the one year the mandates and mandate-holders of the Human Rights Council, and the provisions of the special procedures of the Commission on Human Charter of the United Nations, Rights, of the Sub-Commission for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights as well as the pro- Mindful of the fact that it is desirable to spell out, cedure established pursuant to Economic and So- complete and increase the visibility of the rules cial Council resolution 1503 (XLVIII) of 27 May and principles governing the behaviour of man- 1970, date-holders,
Noting also decision 1/104 of 30 June 2006, in Noting the Regulations Governing the Status, which the Council established the Open-ended Basic Rights and Duties of Officials other than Intergovernmental Working Group entrusted with Secretariat Officials, and Experts on Mission the task of formulating recommendations on the that was adopted by the General Assembly in issue of the review and possibly the enhancement resolution 56/280 of 27 March 2002, and rationalization of all mandates, mechanisms, functions and responsibilities of the Commission Noting also the draft Manual of the United Na- on Human Rights, in order to maintain a regime of tions Human Rights Special Procedures adopted
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights 49 in 1999 by the sixth annual meeting of mandate- Status, Basic Rights and Duties of Officials holders, as revised, other than Secretariat Officials, and Experts on Mission (ST/SGB/2002/9) (hereinafter referred Taking note of the deliberations and proposals to as “the Regulations”); of the Open-ended Intergovernmental Working Group on Review of Mandates, 2. The provisions of the draft manual of United Nations Human Rights Special Procedures 1. Urges all States to cooperate with, and assist, the should be in consonance with those of the pres- special procedures in the performance of their ent Code; tasks and to provide all information in a timely manner, as well as respond to communications 3. Mandate-holders shall be provided by the Unit- transmitted to them by the special procedures ed Nations High Commissioner for Human without undue delay; Rights, along with the documentation pertain- ing to their mission, with a copy of the present 2. Adopts the Code of Conduct for Special Proce- Code of which they must acknowledge receipt. dures Mandate-Holders of the Human Rights Council, the text of which is annexed to the pres- Article 3 - General principles of conduct ent resolution and whose provisions should be disseminated by the Office of the United Nations Mandate-holders are independent United Na- High Commissioner for Human Rights, to the tions experts. While discharging their mandate, mandate-holders, to the Member States of the they shall: United Nations and to other concerned parties. (a) Act in an independent capacity, and exercise Annex their functions in accordance with their man- date, through a professional, impartial assess- DRAFT CODE OF CONDUCT FOR SPECIAL ment of facts based on internationally recog- PROCEDURES MANDATE-HOLDERS OF nized human rights standards, and free from THE HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL any kind of extraneous influence, incitement, pressure, threat or interference, either direct Article 1 - Purpose of the Code of Conduct or indirect, on the part of any party, whether stakeholder or not, for any reason whatsoever, The purpose of the present Code of Conduct is the notion of independence being linked to to enhance the effectiveness of the system of spe- the status of mandate-holders, and to their cial procedures by defining the standards of ethi- freedom to assess the human rights questions cal behaviour and professional conduct that spe- that they are called upon to examine under cial procedures mandate-holders of the Human their mandate; Rights Council (hereinafter referred to as “man- date-holders”) shall observe whilst discharging (b) Keep in mind the mandate of the Council their mandates. which is responsible for promoting universal respect for the protection of all human rights Article 2 - Status of the Code of Conduct and fundamental freedoms for all, through dialogue and cooperation as specified in Gen- 1. The provisions of the present Code comple- eral Assembly resolution 60/251 of 15 March ment those of the Regulations Governing the 2006;
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights 50 (c) Exercise their functions in accordance with 2. When exercising their functions, the mandate- their mandate and in compliance with the holders are entitled to privileges and immuni- Regulations, as well as with the present Code; ties as provided for under relevant internation- al instruments, including section 22 of article (d) Focus exclusively on the implementation of VI of the Convention on the Privileges and Im- their mandate, constantly keeping in mind the munities of the United Nations. fundamental obligations of truthfulness, loyalty and independence pertaining to their mandate; 3. Without prejudice to these privileges and im- munities, the mandate-holders shall carry out (e) Uphold the highest standards of efficiency, their mandate while fully respecting the na- competence and integrity, meaning, in par- tional legislation and regulations of the coun- ticular, though not exclusively, probity, impar- try wherein they are exercising their mission. tiality, equity, honesty and good faith; Where an issue arises in this regard, mandate- holders shall adhere strictly to the provisions of (f) Neither seek nor accept instructions from any Regulation 1 (e) of the Regulations. Government, individual, governmental or non-governmental organization or pressure Article 5 - Solemn declaration group whatsoever; Prior to assuming their functions, mandate-hold- (g) Adopt a conduct that is consistent with their ers shall make the following solemn declaration status at all times; in writing:
(h) Be aware of the importance of their duties and “I solemnly declare that I shall perform my du- responsibilities, taking the particular nature ties and exercise my functions from a completely of their mandate into consideration and be- impartial, loyal and conscientious standpoint, having in such a way as to maintain and rein- and truthfully, and that I shall discharge these force the trust they enjoy of all stakeholders; functions and regulate my conduct in a manner totally in keeping with the terms of my mandate, (i) Refrain from using their office or knowledge the Charter of the United Nations, the interests gained from their functions for private gain, of the United Nations, and with the objective of financial or otherwise, or for the gain and/or promoting and protecting human rights, without detriment of any family member, close associ- seeking or accepting any instruction from any ate, or third party; other party whatsoever.”
(j) Not accept any honour, decoration, favour, gift Article 6 - Prerogatives or remuneration from any governmental or non-governmental source for activities carried Without prejudice to prerogatives for which pro- out in pursuit of his/her mandate. vision is made as part of their mandate, the man- date-holders shall: Article 4 - Status of mandate-holders (a) Always seek to establish the facts, based on ob- 1. Mandate-holders exercise their functions on a jective, reliable information emanating from personal basis, their responsibilities not being relevant credible sources, that they have duly national but exclusively international. cross-checked to the best extent possible;
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights 51 (b) Take into account in a comprehensive and holders’ assessment and of responding to the timely manner, in particular information pro- allegations made against this State, and annex vided by the State concerned on situations rel- the State’s written summary responses to their evant to their mandate; reports.
(c) Evaluate all information in the light of inter- Article 9 - Letters of allegation nationally recognized human rights standards relevant to their mandate, and of international With a view to achieving effectiveness and har- conventions to which the State concerned is a monization in the handling of letters of allegation party; by special procedures, mandate-holders shall as- sess their conformity with reference to the follow- (d) Be entitled to bring to the attention of the ing criteria: Council any suggestion likely to enhance the capacity of special procedures to fulfil their (a) The communication should not be manifestly mandate. unfounded or politically motivated;
Article 7 - Observance of the terms of the mandate (b) The communication should contain a factual description of the alleged violations of human It is incumbent on the mandate-holders to exer- rights; cise their functions in strict observance of their mandate and in particular to ensure that their (c) The language in the communication should recommendations do not exceed their mandate not be abusive; or the mandate of the Council itself. (d) The communication should be submitted by Article 8 - Sources of information a person or a group of persons claiming to be victim of violations or by any person or group In their information-gathering activities the man- of persons, including non-governmental or- date-holders shall: ganizations, acting in good faith in accor- dance with principles of human rights, and (a) Be guided by the principles of discretion, free from politically motivated stands or con- transparency, impartiality, and even-handed- trary to, the provisions of the Charter of the ness; United Nations, and claiming to have direct or reliable knowledge of those violations sub- (b) Preserve the confidentiality of sources of testi- stantiated by clear information; monies if their divulgation could cause harm to individuals involved; (e) The communication should not be exclusively based on reports disseminated by mass media. (c) Rely on objective and dependable facts based on evidentiary standards that are appropriate Article 10 - Urgent appeals to the non-judicial character of the reports and conclusions they are called upon to draw up; Mandate-holders may resort to urgent appeals in cases where the alleged violations are time- (d) Give representatives of the concerned State sensitive in terms of involving loss of life, life- the opportunity of commenting on mandate- threatening situations or either imminent or
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights 52 ongoing damage of a very grave nature to victims to the privacy and confidentiality that man- that cannot be addressed in a timely manner by date-holders require to fulfil their mandate. the procedure under article 9 of the present Code. Article 12 - Private opinions and the public nature Article 11 - Field visits of the mandate
Mandate-holders shall: Mandate-holders shall:
(a) Ensure that their visit is conducted in compli- (a) Bear in mind the need to ensure that their per- ance with the terms of reference of their man- sonal political opinions are without prejudice date; to the execution of their mission, and base their conclusions and recommendations on (b) Ensure that their visit is conducted with the objective assessments of human rights situa- consent, or at the invitation, of the State con- tions; cerned; (b) In implementing their mandate, therefore, (c) Prepare their visit in close collaboration with show restraint, moderation and discretion so the Permanent Mission of the concerned State as not to undermine the recognition of the accredited to the United Nations Office at Ge- independent nature of their mandate or the neva except if another authority is designated environment necessary to properly discharge for this purpose by the concerned State; the said mandate.
(d) Finalize the official programme of their visits Article 13 - Recommendations and conclusions directly with the host country officials with administrative and logistical back-up from Mandate-holders shall: the local United Nations Agency and/or Rep- resentative of the High Commissioner for Hu- (a) While expressing their considered views, par- man Rights who may also assist in arranging ticularly in their public statements concerning private meetings; allegations of human rights violations, also in- dicate fairly what responses were given by the (e) Seek to establish a dialogue with the relevant concerned State; government authorities and with all other stakeholders, the promotion of dialogue and (b) While reporting on a concerned State, ensure cooperation to ensure the full effectiveness of that their declarations on the human rights special procedures being a shared obligation situation in the country are at all times com- of the mandate-holders, the concerned State patible with their mandate and the integrity, and the said stakeholders; independence and impartiality which their status requires, and which is likely to promote (f) Have access upon their own request, in con- a constructive dialogue among stakeholders, sultation with the Office of the High Commis- as well as cooperation for the promotion and sioner for Human Rights and after a common protection of human rights; understanding between the host Government and the mandate-holder, to official security (c) Ensure that the concerned government au- protection during their visit, without prejudice thorities are the first recipients of their
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights 53 conclusions and recommendations concern- Article 15 - Accountability to the Council ing this State and are given adequate time to respond, and that likewise the Council is the In the fulfilment of their mandate, man- first recipient of conclusions and recommen- date-holders are accountable to the Council. dations addressed to this body. 9th meeting Article 14 - Communication with Governments 18 June 2007 Mandate-holders shall address all their commu- [Adopted without a vote. See chap. III.] nications to concerned Governments through diplomatic channels unless agreed otherwise be- tween individual Governments and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights 54 APPENDIX C SPECIAL PROCEDURES OF THE HRC - MANDATE HOLDERS (as of 1 August 2010)
Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as Independent Expert on situation of human a component of the right to an adequate rights in Burundi standard of living Current Mandate Holder Current Mandate Holder Mr. Fatsah Ouguergouz (Algeria) (since August 2010) Ms. Raquel Rolnik (Brazil) (since May 2008) Previous Mandate Holders Previous Mandate Holder Mr. Akich Okola (Kenya) Mr. Miloon Kothari (India) Mr. Paulo Sergio Pinheiro (Brazil) Working Group on people of African descent Ms. Marie-Therese Aissata Keita-Bocoum (Côte d’Ivoire) Current Mandate Holders Special Rapporteur on the situation of Ms. Monorama Biswas (Bangladesh) (since November 2008) human rights in Cambodia Ms. Mirjana Najcevska (The former Yugoslav Republic of Current Mandate Holder Macedonia) (since November 2008) Mr. Surya Prasad Subedi (Nepal) (since May 2009) Ms. Verene Shepherd (Jamaica) (since April 2010) Mr. Linos-Alexandros Sicilianos (Greece) (since August 2009) Previous Mandate Holders Ms. Maya Sahli (Algeria) (since August 2008) Mr. Yash Ghai (Kenya) Mr. Peter Leuprecht (Austria) Previous Mandate Holders Mr. Thomas Hammarberg (Sweden) Mr. Ralston Milton Nettleford (Jamaica) Mr. Michael Kirby (Australia) Mr. Joe Frans (Sweden) Mr. George N. Jabbour (Syrian Arab Republic) Special Rapporteur on the sale of children, Ms. Irina Zlatescu (Romania) child prostitution and child pornography Mr. Peter L. Kasanda (Zambia) Current Mandate Holder Working Group on Arbitrary Detention Ms. Najat Maalla M’jid (Morocco) (since May 2008) Current Mandate Holders Previous Mandate Holders Mr. Mads Andenas (Norway) (since August 2009) Mr. Juan Miguel Petit (Uruguay) Mr. Roberto Garretón (Chile) (since May 2008) Mr. Vitit Muntarbhorn (Thailand) Ms. Shaheen Sardar Ali (Pakistan) (since August 2008) Ms. Ofelia Calcetas-Santos (Philippines) Mr. El Hadji Malick Sow (Senegal) (since May 2008) Independent Expert in the field of cultural Mr. Vladimir Tochilovsky (Ukraine) (since May 2010) rights Previous Mandate Holders Current Mandate Holder Mr. Aslan Abashidze (Russian Federation) Ms. Farida Shaheed (Pakistan) (since November 2009) Mr. Seyyed Mohammad Hashemi (Islamic Republic of Iran) Ms. Soledad Villagra de Biedermann (Paraguay) Special Rapporteur on the situation of Ms. Leïla Zerrougui (Algeria) human rights in the Democratic People’s Mr. Tamás Bán (Hungary) Republic of Korea Mr. Louis Joinet (France) Mr. Laity Kama (Senegal) Current Mandate Holder Mr. Kapil Sibal (India) Mr. Marzuki Darusman (Indonesia) (since August 2010) Mr. Petr Uhl (Czech Republic) Previous Mandate Holder Ms. Manuela Carmena Castrillo (Spain) Mr. Vitit Muntarbhorn (Thailand)
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights 55 Special Rapporteur on the right to education Previous Mandate Holders Mr. Arjun Sengupta (India) Current Mandate Holder Ms. A. M. Lizin (Belgium) Mr. Kishore Singh (India) Previous Mandate Holders Special Rapporteur on the right to food Mr. Vernor Muñoz Villalobos (Costa Rica) Current Mandate Holder Ms. Katarina Tomasevski (Croatia) Mr. Olivier De Schutter (Belgium) (since May 2008) Working Group on enforced or involuntary Previous Mandate Holder disappearances Mr. Jean Ziegler (Switzerland) Current Mandate Holders Independent expert on the effects of Mr. Olivier de Frouville (France) (since November 2008) foreign debt and other related international Mr. Ariel Dulitzky (Argentina/USA) (since August 2010) financial obligations of S tates on the full Ms. Jasminka Dzumhur (Bosnia and Herzegovina) (since enjoyment of human rights, particularly May 2010) Mr. Osman El-Hajje (Lebanon) (since August 2009) economic, social and cultural rights Mr. Jeremy Sarkin (South Africa) (since May 2008) Current Mandate Holder Previous Mandate Holders Mr. Cephas Lumina (Zambia) (since May 2008) Mr. Santiago Corcuera Caberut (Mexico) Previous Mandate Holders Mr. Darko Göttlicher (Croatia) Mr. Bernards Andrew Nyamwaya Mudho (Kenya) Mr. Saied Rajaie Khorasani (Islamic Republic of Iran) Mr. Fantu Cheru (USA/Ethiopia) Mr. J ‘Bayo Adekanye (Nigeria) Special Rapporteur on the promotion and Mr. Anuar Zainal Abidin (Malaysia) Mr. Mohamed Redha Al-Jabiri (Iraq) protection of the right to freedom of opinion Mr. Viscount Colville of Culross (United Kingdom) and expression Mr. Jonas K.D. Foli (Ghana) Current Mandate Holder Mr. Diego García-Sayán (Peru) Mr. Frank William La Rue Lewy (Guatemala) (since Mr. Agha Hilaly (Pakistan) August 2008) Mr. Manfred Nowak (Austria) Previous Mandate Holders Mr. Kwadwo Faka Nyamekye (Ghana) Mr. Ambeyi Ligabo (Kenya) Mr. Luis A. Varela Quiros (Costa Rica) Mr. Abid Hussain (India) Mr. Ivan Tosevski (The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or Mr. Toine Van Dongen (Netherlands) belief Mr. Stephen J. Toope (Canada) Current Mandate Holder Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, Mr. Heiner Bielefeldt (Germany) (since August 2010) summary or arbitrary executions Previous Mandate Holders Current Mandate Holder Ms. Asma Jahangir (Pakistan) Mr. Christof Heyns (South Africa) (since August 2010) Mr. Abdelfattah Amor (Tunisia) Mr. Angelo d’Almeida Ribeiro (Portugal) Previous Mandate Holders Mr. Philip Alston (Australia) Independent Expert on the situation of Ms. Asma Jahangir (Pakistan) human rights in Haiti Mr. Bacre Waly Ndiaye (Senegal) Current Mandate Holder Mr. S. Amos Wako (Kenya) Mr. Michel Forst (France) (since August 2008) Independent expert on the question of Previous Mandate Holders human rights and extreme poverty Mr. Louis Joinet (France) Current Mandate Holder Mr. Adama Dieng (Senegal) Ms. Maria Magdalena Sepulveda (Chile) (since May 2008)
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights 56 Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone Previous Mandate Holder to the enjoyment of the highest attainable Ms. Shaista Shameem (Fiji) standard of physical and mental health Mandate Holders under the prior mandate of the Special Rapporteur Current Mandate Holder Ms. Shaista Shameem (Fiji) Mr. Anand Grover (India) (since August 2008) Mr. Enrique Bernales-Ballesteros (Peru) Previous Mandate Holder Mr. Paul Hunt (New Zealand) Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants Special Rapporteur on the situation on human rights defenders Current Mandate Holder Mr. Jorge A. Bustamante (Mexico) (since July 2005) Current Mandate Holder Previous Mandate Holder Ms. Margaret Sekaggya (Uganda) (since May 2008) Ms. Gabriela Rodríguez Pizarro (Costa Rica) Previous Mandate Holder Ms. Hina Jilani (Pakistan) Independent Expert on minority issues Special Rapporteur on the independence of Current Mandate Holder Ms. Gay J. McDougall (United States of America) (since judges and lawyers July 2005) Current Mandate Holder Special Rapporteur on the situation of Ms. Gabriela Knaul (Brazil) (since June 2009) human rights in Myanmar Previous Mandate Holders Mr. Leandro Despouy (Argentina) Current Mandate Holder Mr. Param Cumaraswamy (Malaysia) Mr. Tomas Ojea Quintana (Argentina) (since May 2008) Special Rapporteur on the situation of Previous Mandate Holders Mr. Paulo Sergio Pinheiro (Brazil) human rights and fundamental freedoms of Mr. Rajsoomer Lallah (Mauritius) indigenous people Mr. Yozo Yokota (Japan) Current Mandate Holder Special Rapporteur on the situation of Mr. James Anaya (United States of America) (since May 2008) human rights in the Palestinian territories Previous Mandate Holder occupied since 1967 Mr. Rodolfo Stavenhagen (Mexico) Current Mandate Holder Representative of the Secretary-General on the Mr. Richard Falk (United States of America) (since May human rights of internally displaced persons 2008) Current Mandate Holder Previous Mandate Holders Mr. Walter Kälin (Switzerland) (since September 2004) Mr. John Dugard (South Africa) Previous Mandate Holder Mr. René Felber (Switzerland) Mr. Francis M. Deng (Sudan) Mr. Hannu Halinen (Finland) Mr. Giorgio Giacomelli (Italy) Working Group on the use of mercenaries Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms as a means of violating human rights and of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia impeding the exercise of the right of people and related intolerance to self-determination Current Mandate Holder
Current Mandate Holders Mr. Githu Muigai (Kenya) (since August 2008) Ms. Najat Al-Hajjaji (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) (since July 2005) Ms. Amada Benavides de Pérez (Colombia) (since July 2005) Previous Mandate Holders Mr. José Luis Gomez del Prado (Spain) (sinceO ctober 2005) Mr. Doudou Diène (Senegal) Mr. Alexander Nikitin (Russian Federation) (since July 2005) Mr. Maurice Glèlè-Ahanhanzo (Benin) Ms. Faiza Patel (Pakistan) (since August 2010)
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights 57 Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms Previous Mandate Holders of slavery, including its causes and Mr. Theo van Boven (The Netherlands) consequences Mr. Nigel S. Rodley (United Kingdom) Mr. Peter Kooijmans (The Netherlands) Current Mandate Holder Ms. Gulnara Shahinian (Armenia) (since May 2008) Special Rapporteur on the adverse effects of the illicit movement and dumping of toxic Independent expert on human rights and and dangerous products and wastes on the international solidarity enjoyment of human rights Current Mandate Holder Current Mandate Holder Mr. Rudi Muhammad Rizki (Indonesia) (since July 2005) Mr. Calin Georgescu (Romania) (since August 2010) Independent Expert on the situation of Previous Mandate Holders human rights in Somalia Mr. Okechukwu Ibeanu (Nigeria) Current Mandate Holder Ms. Fatma-Zohra Ouhachi-Vesely (Algeria) Mr. Shamsul Bari (Bangladesh) (since May 2008) Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons, Previous Mandate Holders especially women and children Mr. Ghanim Alnajjar (Kuwait) Current Mandate Holder Ms. Mona Rishmawi (Palestine) Ms. Joy Ngozi Ezeilo (Nigeria) (since August 2008) Mr. Mohamed Charfi (Tunisia) Mr. Fanuel Jariretundu Kozonguizi (Namibia) Previous Mandate Holder Ms. Sigma Huda (Bangladesh) Independent Expert on the situation of human rights in the Sudan Special Representative of the Secretary- General on the issue of human rights and Current Mandate Holder Mr. Mohamed Chande Othman (Tanzania) (since October transnational corporations and other 2009) business enterprises Mandate Holders under the prior mandate of the Current Mandate Holder Special Rapporteur Mr. John Ruggie (USA) (since July 2005) Ms. Sima Samar (Afghanistan) Special Rapporteur on violence against Mr. Emmanuel Akwei Addo (Ghana) Mr. Gerhard Baum (Germany) women, its causes and consequences Mr. Leonardo Franco (Argentina) Current Mandate Holder Mr. Gáspár Biro (Hungary) Ms. Rashida Manjoo (South Africa) (since August 2009) Special Rapporteur on the promotion and Previous Mandate Holders protection of human rights and fundamental Ms. Yakin Ertürk (Turkey) Ms. Radhika Coomaraswamy (Sri Lanka) freedoms while countering terrorism Independent Expert on the issue of human Current Mandate Holder Mr. Martin Scheinin (Finland) rights obligations related to access to safe Previous Mandate Holder drinking water and sanitation Robert Goldman (The United States) Current Mandate Holder Special Rapporteur on torture and other Ms. Catarina de Albuquerque (Portugal) (since November 2008) cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment Current Mandate Holder Mr. Manfred Nowak (Austria) (since November 2004)
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights 58 APPENDIX D HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP
AFRICA Latin America and Caribbean Algeria 2006-2007 * Argentina 2006-2007, 2008-2011 * Angola 2010-2013 Bolivia 2007-2010 * Burkina Faso 2008-2011 * Brazil 2006-2008, 2008-2011 * Cameroon 2006-2009, 2009-2012 * Chile 2008-2011 * Djibouti 2006-2009, 2009-2012 * Cuba 2006-2009, 2009-2012 Egypt 2007-2010 * Ecuador 2006-2007, 2010-2013 * Gabon 2006-2008, 2008-2011 * Guatemala 2006-2008, 2010-2013 * Ghana 2006-2008, 2008-2011 * Mexico 2009-2009, 2009-2012 * Libya 2010-2013 Nicaragua 2007-2010 Madagascar 2007-2010 Peru 2006-2008 Mali 2006-2008 * Uruguay 2006-2009, 2009-2012 * Mauritania 2010-2013 * Mauritius 2006-2009, 2009-2012 EASTERN EUROPE Morocco 2006-2007 Azerbaijan 2006-2009 * Nigeria 2006-2009, 2009-2012 Bosnia and 2007-2010 * Senegal 2006-2009, 2009-2012 Herzegovina South Africa 2006-2007, 2007-2010 Czech Republic 2006-2007 Tunisia 2006-2007 * Hungary 2009-2012 * Uganda 2010-2013 * Republic of Moldova 2010-2013 * Zambia 2006-2008, 2008-2011 * Poland 2006-2007, 2010-2013 Romania 2006-2008 * Russian Federation 2009-2009, 2009-2012 * Slovakia 2008-2011 Slovenia 2007-2010 * Ukraine 2006-2008, 2008-2011
* Current members as of July 2010
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights 59 ASIA WESTERN EUROPE AND OTHERS * Bahrain 2006-2007, 2008-2011 * Belgium 2009-2012 * Bangladesh 2006-2009, 2009-2012 Canada 2006-2009 * China 2006-2009, 2009-2012 Finland 2006-2007 India 2006-2007, 2007-2010 * France 2006-2008, 2008-2011 Indonesia 2006-2007, 2007-2010 Germany 2006-2009 * Japan 2006-2008, 2008-2011 Italy 2007-2010 * Jordan 2006-2009, 2009-2012 Netherlands 2006-2007, 2007-2010 * Kyrgyzstan 2009-2012 * Norway 2009-2012 * Malaysia 2007-2010, 2010-2013 * Spain 2009-2013 * Maldives 2010-2013 * Switzerland 2006-2009, 2010-2013 * Pakistan 2006-2008, 2008-2011 * United Kingdom 2006-2008, 2008-2011 Philippines 2006-2007, 2007-2010 * United States 2009-2012 * Qatar 2007-2010, 2010-2013 * Republic of 2006-2008, 2008-2011 Korea * Saudi Arabia 2006-2009, 2009-2012 Sri Lanka 2006-2008 * Thailand 2010-2013
* Current members as of July 2010
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights 60 APPENDIX E EXAMPLES OF HOW SPECIAL PROCEDURES VISITS AND COMMUNICATIONS AFFECT NATIONAL ACTION
The following summaries illustrate the variety of released by a presidential pardon and had the op- ways in which Special Procedures have played an portunity to thank the Special Rapporteur in per- important role as catalysts for actions by govern- son. ments and others that promote and protect human rights. Types of impact include direct intervention In a related case of normative impact, the Special on behalf of victims leading to improvement in Rapporteur, building on the work of his prede- their situations, policy changes, legislative reforms, cessor, encouraged the government to eliminate favorable judicial decisions, agenda-setting of new criminal charges for defamation. The mandate issues demanding national and international at- holder directly raised this issue with the Prime tention, and capacity building. Minister and his advisors and while it has not been fully resolved, the penal code was revised, in Country Visits line with recommendations, so that media defa- mation would no longer result in criminal liabil- Stopping Ill Treatment of Prisoners in ity or imprisonment as a penalty.94 Cambodia Protecting Internally Displaced Persons in After visiting two imprisoned journalists in 2009, Georgia the Special Rapporteur on Cambodia complained about and publicized poor prison conditions. The Special Representative of the Secretary Gen- He confronted senior government officials and eral on the human rights of internally displaced prison administrators about the poor conditions persons has played a fundamental role in re- and treatment subsequently improved. One of cent years in encouraging effective government the prisoners’ sisters confirmed the success of the policy approaches to Georgia’s complicated and mandate holder’s visit to a local newspaper, de- ever changing displacement problems. After the claring that since the Special Rapporteur’s visit SRSG’s first visit in 2000, he recommended the “the prison administration treated my brother government design national programs and poli- much better by allowing him to sleep in a wider cies in accordance with the U.N. Guiding Princi- space and letting him get out of his cell five hours ples on Internal Displacement. In 2005 his succes- a d ay.” 93 Eventually, one of the prisoners was sor visited again, issuing a report recommending
93 Ros Rada, Letter to the Editor Cambodia Daily, January 29, 2010. In conversation with the Special Rapporteur, he made clear that he does not claim full credit for the release of these people as there were a number of human rights organizations, both national and international, campaigning for their release. 94 Human Rights Watch, Cambodia Events of 2009,
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights 61 that the government design a policy to support Promoting Right to Health in Peru IDPs while maintaining their right to return. Pur- suant to these recommendations, the Georgian The Special Rapporteur on health visited Peru in government enacted three displacement-related 2004, formulating recommendations in health normative laws in 2006 and 2007 that complied policy, sexual and reproductive rights, and mental with the SRSG recommendations. health among other issues. Nearly a year after the visit, the country reported on its progress and ex- The 2006 Law of Georgia on Internal Displace- plained actions taken to address the mandate hold- ment guarantees specific rights for IDPs in accor- er’s recommendations. The government launched dance with the Guiding Principles while the 2007 a national campaign four months after the Spe- Law on Property Restitution and Compensation cial Rapporteur’s field mission to comply with his for the Victims of Conflict in the Former South primary recommendation that “government, in Ossetian Autonomous District in the Territory of cooperation with stakeholders, formulate a com- Georgia established the legal procedures by which prehensive health policy and strategy, underpinned refugees and IDPs can seek property restitution by the right to health (in short, a ‘pro-poor equity- and compensation.95 In addition, the Georgian based health policy’).”98 The government campaign, government adopted Decree #47 of 2007 on Ap- known as Carta de Salud, allowed members of the proving the State Strategy for Internally Displaced public to contribute to and comment on govern- Persons which recognized the Guiding Principles ment health policy. More than 60,000 responses as the conceptual framework for Georgia’s IDP were collected—with special attention given to il- policy and laid out the strategy for the return of literate and/or Qechua-speaking citizens.99 the internally displaced, decent living conditions for the displaced population, and their participa- Responding to the mandate holder’s recommen- tion in society.96 Following the August 2008 con- dation on sexual and reproductive rights, the flict in South Ossetia and subsequent hostilities government launched national health strategies in Abkhazia that led to thousands of additional aimed at enhanced treatment and education in displacements, the SRSG conducted an official these areas. Per the Special Rapporteur’s recom- mission in October 2008 and another follow up mendation on providing comprehensive sexual visit in November 2009 to study the impact of the and reproductive health information and services conflict. The SRSG continued to encourage the to young people,100 the government systematically implementation of the national action plan that incorporated the subject into the curriculum of has since been updated and revised to reflect new more than 3,000 primary and secondary schools challenges per his advice.97 in 34 regions.101
95 Brookings-Bern Project on Internal Displacement, National and Regional Laws and Policies on Internal Displacement: Georgia. For more information, see:
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights 62 Regarding the mandate holder’s recommendation practical-oriented research, aimed at gaining a that the government ought to ensure “access to a better understanding of this phenomenon.106 wide range of safe, effective, affordable and accept- able contraceptive methods,”102 the government Treating Maternal Mortality as a Human Rights initially responded that it would aim to “assist Issue individuals in attaining their reproductive goals (improving access to the full range of contracep- Implementation at the state level is not the only tive methods).”103 This recommendation, after a way to measure the effectiveness of Special Pro- tumultuous domestic debate, was realized in 2010 cedures. During his tenure as a mandate holder, when Peru’s Constitutional Court ruled that the the Special Rapporteur on health focused consis- Ministry of Health require public clinics to stock tently on maternal mortality as a human rights and make available emergency contraceptives. issue. It was the focus of his 2006 report to the General Assembly; the theme of his 2007 country Monitoring Violence against Indigenous Women visit to India and a supplementary note attached to the report; the topic of his March 2007 state- in Canada ment to the Council; the topic of a side panel to an HRC session in 2008; and the topic of a paper After visiting Canada in 2004, the Special Rap- authored by him in 2007 for UNFPA. At the June porteur on violence against women revealed 2009 session of the HRC, member states endorsed high rates of violence experienced by indigenous a resolution that recognized preventable maternal women. Approximately 500 Aboriginal women mortality as a human rights issue and tasked the had been murdered or reported missing over a OHCHR with investigating the topic. 15-year period, and Aboriginal women were five times more likely to experience a violent death Promoting Gender Equity in the Judiciary in the 104 than other Canadian women. The mandate Maldives holder recommended that “particular attention be paid by specialized institutions to the abuse After visiting the Maldives in 2007, the Special and violence of Aboriginal women and girls, par- Rapporteur for the independence of judges and 105 ticularly in the urban environment.” In March lawyers voiced concern that there was not one sin- 2005, the government signed a five-year contri- gle female judge in the country—an issue that had bution agreement with an indigenous rights or- been formally recognized by the Attorney Gen- ganization to run the “Sisters in Spirit” program, eral’s office dating back to 2004.107 Less than two aimed at addressing violence, particularly ra- months after presenting his recommendations, cialized and/or sexualized violence, against Ab- the Maldives announced the first appointment of original women through awareness-raising and female judges in the country’s history.108
102 E/CN.4/2005/51/Add.3, p. 21, para 76. 103 E/CN.4/2005/G/32, p. 4, #2. 104 Rodolfo Stavenhagen, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, Mission to Canada, December 2, 2004, para 56. U.N. Doc: E/CN.4/2005/88/Add.3. 105 Rodolfo Stavenhagen, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, Mission to Canada, para 113. 106 Rodolfo Stavenhagen, Study Regarding Best Practices Carried Out to Implement the Recommendations Contained in the Annual Reports of the Special Rapporteur, February 26, 2007, para 43. U.N. Doc: A/HRC/4/32/Add.4. 107 Leandro Despouy, Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, Mission to the Maldives, May 2, 2007, p. 18, para 66. U.N. Doc: A/HRC/4/25/Add.2. 108 U.N. News Centre, “UN rights expert welcomes appointment of first female judges in the Maldives,” July 13, 2007.
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights 63 Reducing Police Intimidation in Northern Ireland before the report was made public. The govern- ment took immediate action to address the Spe- After visiting in 1997, the Special Rapporteur on cial Rapporteur’s discovery that in some prisons the independence of judges and lawyers recom- “detainees are held in deplorable conditions as mended that the “Government should install vid- well, with overcrowded cells lacking appropri- eo and audio recording equipment in all holding ate sanitation and places to sleep.”109 Only three centers in Northern Ireland” to reduce police in- weeks after his visit the government enacted a timidation of suspects. Furthermore the mandate plan, at the request of the president and minister holder recommended that solicitors be present of interior, to alleviate overcrowding. More than during police interrogations. According to gov- 1,200 detainees were transferred to new facilities ernment officials in the United Kingdom, police with special arrangements for those with psychi- intimidation of defense layers nearly ceased after atric illnesses, drug addictions, and women with both measures were implemented in 1998. children.110
Tackling Violence against Women in Indonesia Addressing Neglected Diseases in Uganda
In some cases, it takes years for a mandate holder’s The Special Rapporteur on health visited Uganda recommendation to come to fruition. In 1998, the in collaboration with the World Health Orga- Special Rapporteur on violence against women nization in 2005 to focus on neglected tropical visited Indonesia in the aftermath of violent sexu- diseases—ailments that affect nearly one billion al attacks against Chinese women in major cities. impoverished persons annually. Following the According to one NGO representative, civil soci- visit, the Special Rapporteur recommended that ety used the Special Rapporteur’s report as a lob- the Uganda Human Rights Commission (UHCR) bying tool to press government and parliament “establish a right-to-health unit that is responsible to enact new measures on domestic violence and for monitoring those policies, programs and proj- to help shape their agenda, including a presiden- ects relating to neglected diseases. For example, tial decree creating the National Commission on relying on existing data, the unit should track the Violence Against Women (Komnas Perampuan). incidence of neglected diseases and the initiatives After many years of campaigning, Indonesian leg- taken to address them.”111 islators in 2006 passed a victim and witness pro- tection law, a step recommended by the mandate In response to the recommendation, the Com- holder following her visit. mission created a new unit in 2006 tasked exclu- sively with focusing on neglected tropical dis- Improving Prison Conditions in Uruguay eases. Key functions of the unit include monitor- ing government policies, programs and activities In Uruguay, the Special Rapporteur on torture’s and sensitizing health workers and policy-mak- visit in March 2009 made a difference even ers to a rights-based approach to health care.112
109 U.N. Special Rapporteur on torture concludes mission to Uruguay, March 27, 2009.
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights 64 According to UHCR annual reports, it has con- are aired; the PSD installed sealed complaints tinued to monitor neglected diseases and govern- boxes in their Human Rights Offices; PSD’s Le- ment policies associated with them. gal Affairs prosecutors were made available at all times in seven prisons to receive complaints; the Combating Torture in Jordan PSD and the National Center for Human Rights (NCHR) set up hotlines to receive complaints; After visiting Jordan in 2006, the Special Rap- and the Office of the Ombudsman was founded porteur on torture issued conclusions and recom- in February 2009.115 mendations that were challenged by the govern- ment.113 Despite the opposition to some of the Developing Anti-Torture Policies in Georgia findings, the government took several steps to address recommendations. After the Special Rapporteur on torture visited Georgia in 2005, the government began to imple- The mandate holder concluded that there existed ment recommendations even before the pub- an implicit social tolerance for torture and recom- lication of the official report. The government mended that the highest authorities, particularly amended the criminal code to bring the definition those responsible for law enforcement, declare of torture in line with international standards, ac- that torture would not be tolerated and would ceded to the Optional Protocol of the Convention be punishable by a prison sentence. According Against Torture, (OPCAT) and recognized CAT’s to non-governmental sources, the Public Secu- competence to consider individual complaints— rity Directorate (PSD) officials reported that King all in compliance with the Special Rapporteur’s Abdullah and the Director of PSD issued clear in- preliminary findings.116 The government also structions that there was to be no torture. These quickly implemented many of the Special Rap- declarations were not made public. NGO sources porteur’s other recommendations: it developed further confirmed to the Special Rapporteur that and adopted a new anti-torture action plan; be- the General Intelligence Directorate (GID) issued gan refurbishing prisons to remedy overcrowding written and oral instructions to all personnel to and made the necessary budgetary allocations for refrain from abusing any detainee physically, ver- future repairs; transferred thousands of prisoners bally or emotionally, and providing an increase in from overcrowded facilities; and began to sepa- penalties for violations.114 The Special Rapporteur rate pre-trial detainees from convicted prisoners also recommended that the government establish with more consistency.117 an effective and independent complaints system for victims of torture and abuse. NGO sources Protecting Freedom of Expression in the Maldives confirmed several steps taken by the government to ensure a complaints mechanism: the PSD estab- After visiting in March 2009, the Special Rappor- lished a radio station through which complaints teur on freedom of expression recommended that
113 Note verbale dated from the Permanent Mission of Jordan to the United Nations Office at Geneva addressed to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 22 March 2006, p. 2. 114 Manfred Nowak, Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment: Follow-up to recommendations, February 18, 2008, paras 238-295. U.N. Doc: A/HRC/7/3/Add.2. 115 Manfred Nowak, Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment: Follow-up to recommendations, February 26, 2010, paras: 38-43. U.N. Doc: A/HRC/13/39/Add.6. 116 Manfred Nowak, Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, September 23, 2005, p. 2. U.N. Doc: E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.3. 117 A/HRC/13/39/Add.6 paras 26-31.
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights 65 the law be amended to treat defamation as a civil and family cases, as well as minor criminal cases, rather than a criminal offense.118 In December of on the basis of indigenous law and custom. The 2009, the Parliament of the Maldives adopted a National Commission for the Development of bill decriminalizing defamation.119 Indigenous Peoples (CDI) also conducted studies on indigenous law and its compatibility with hu- Promoting Language Rights of Indigenous Peo- man rights norms and national legislation.123 ples in Guatemala Government Responses to Communications After concluding a visit to Guatemala in 2002, the Special Rapporteur on indigenous peoples recom- Pakistan: The case of Ayub Masih, a Pakistani mended that the government strengthen the edu- Christian sentenced to death under Pakistan’s cational system as a “national priority,” including harsh blasphemy law, was taken up by the Work- the extension of bilingual education to all areas ing Group on Arbitrary Detention which issued of the country.120 In 2003, the government found- an opinion in November 2001 finding that his de- ed the Vice-Ministry of Bilingual Inter-Cultural tention was arbitrary and in violation of Articles 9 Education and extended multicultural bilingual and 10 of the UDHR. The Working Group called education. In addition, Congress passed the Law on the government either to retry Masih or par- on National Languages, which officially recog- don him. Freedom Now, an NGO that supported nized the Mayan, Garifuna and Xinka languages Masih’s complaint, used the WGAD opinion to and promotes their preservation and use.121 persuade members of the U.S. Senate to issue a letter to President Pervez Musharraf to pardon Fostering the Rule of Law in Indigenous Com- him. In response, the government accelerated munities in Mexico the case review in the Supreme Court of Pakistan which found violations of due process, acquitted After visiting Mexico in 2003, the Special Rappor- Masih of all charges and ordered his immediate teur on indigenous peoples recommended that release.124 the government should incorporate indigenous law into the judicial system.122 Subsequently, the Vietnam: Dr. Nguyen Dan Que, a democracy ac- government established “indigenous courts” or tivist in Vietnam for many decades, was arrested “peace and reconciliation courts” in Campeche, in March 2003 after criticizing the government’s Chiapas, Hidalgo, Puebla, Quintana Roo and San slow pace of political reform. Freedom Now, on Luis Potosí, comprised of members of local in- his behalf, filed two petitions to the Working digenous communities, with power to hear civil Group on Arbitrary Detention alleging Dr. Que’s
118 Frank La Rue, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Mission to the Maldives, May 25, 2009, p. 16, para 59. U.N. Doc: A/HRC/11/4/Add.3. 119 “Freedom of expression: U.N. expert welcomes decriminalization of defamation in the Maldives,” December 1, 2009.
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights 66 detention violated Article 19 of the ICCPR and the individual was released after spending 235 UDHR. In September 2004, WGAD issued an days in solitary confinement in prison.127 opinion concluding that Vietnam, a signatory to the ICCPR, was arbitrarily depriving Dr. Que of United Kingdom: In the report on her coun- his liberty. Freedom Now relied on this opinion to try visit to the United Kingdom (A/HRC/7/10/ intensify a political and media campaign demand- Add.3), the Special Rapporteur on freedom of ing his release. The combination of these elements religion or belief expressed concerns at the con- led Vietnam to release him in February 2005.125 tinued existence of the common law offence of blasphemy. She concluded that the offence is dis- Bahrain: A series of three joint communication criminatory because it favors Christianity alone issued on January 10, January 18, and February and lacks a mechanism to take account of the 20, 2008 by the Special Rapporteurs on the situ- proper balance with freedom of expres sion. She ation of human rights defenders; on torture and recommended that the government decriminalize other cruel, degrading or inhuman treatment or blasphemy as an insult to a religion and to fully punishment; on the promotion and protection of implement the protection of individuals against the right to freedom of opinion and expression; incitement to racial or religious hatred. Subse- on the freedom of religion or belief; on extraju- quently, debates in the Houses of Parliament and dicial, summary or arbitrary executions; and the a report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights Working Group on arbitrary detention called on explicitly referred to the Special Rapporteur’s rec- the government of Bahrain to release Mr. May- ommendations. Amendments were introduced in tham Bader Jassim Al-Sheikh from prison. Mr. the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill with Al-Sheikh was detained during a wave of arrests a view to abolish the offences of blasphemy and between 21 and 28 December 2007, which tar- blasphemous libel under the common law of Eng- geted more than 60 activists, including several land and Wales. The Act received royal assent on human rights defenders, and had been sentenced 8 May 2008 and the relevant section abolishing to five years in prison. His appeal of this convic- the common law blasphemy offences came into tion was denied on 28 December 2008. On 3 April force in July 2008.128 2009, Jassim Al-Sheikh was released from Jaw Prison by royal decree, due to the deterioration of Afghanistan: On January 28, 2008, a joint urgent his health condition.126 appeal issued by the Special Rapporteurs on free- dom of opinion and expression, on freedom of Saudi Arabia: On May 27, 2008, the Working religion or belief, on the independence of judges Group on Arbitrary Detention, and the Special and lawyers, and the Working Group on enforced Rapporteurs on freedom of opinion and expres- or involuntary disappearances called for the re- sion; on the situation of human rights defenders; lease of Sayed Perwiz Kambakhsh, a young jour- on the independence of judges and lawyers; and nalist who was sentenced to death and then to 20 on torture sent an urgent appeal to the Kingdom years in prison for downloading an article about of Saudi Arabia in relation to the case of a promi- the rights of women in Islam. After being held for nent human rights defender. On 11 January 2009, nearly two years, the journalist was pardoned and
125 Id., pp. 138-43. 126 Special Procedures Bulletin No. 13, April-June 2009. 127 Special Procedures Bulletin No. 12, January-March 2009. 128 Special Procedures Bulletin No. 9, April-June 2008.
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights 67 released. In the meantime he has left the country religion or belief, and human rights defend- for fear of reprisals.129 ers sent an urgent appeal to the government of the Maldives concerning the country’s Supreme Australia: On 26 November 2009, the Australian Council for Islamic Affairs banning people from House of Representatives Standing Committee on possessing the Universal Declaration for Human Family, Community, Housing and Youth issued a Rights (UDHR). The government responded major report recommending the enactment of within a week affirming its support for the UDHR new homelessness legislation that enshrines ‘the and explaining that the Council’s statement was right of all Australians to adequate housing. The not legally binding. Moreover, the Deputy Min- document, entitled “Housing the Homeless,” con- ister of Foreign Affairs responded a month later tains 15 recommendations aimed at preventing to confirm the initial response and to inform the and addressing homelessness in the country. The mandate holders that the government informed report cited the recommendations raised by the the Council to desist from such pronouncements Special Rapporteur on the right to adequate hous- without prior consultation.131 ing following his visit to Australia in 2006.130
The Maldives: In July 2005, the Special Rap- porteurs on freedom of expression, freedom of
129 Special Procedure Bulletin No. 14, July-September 2009. 130 Ibid. 131 Report of the Special on the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Summary of cases transmitted to Governments and replies received, March 27, 2006, pp. 176-177. U.N. Doc: E/CN.4/2006/55/Add.1.
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights 68 APPENDIX F STATE RESPONSES TO COMMUNICATIONS (2004-2008) Total Score Breakdown 305 187 3% 2% 1,289 15%
4,419 51%
1,829 21%
682 8% Asia Group - Score Breakdown 103 158 3% 4% 430 10%
2,036 48%
1,102 26%
388 9%
No Response Immaterial Response Violation Rejected Without Substantiation Responsive but Incomplete Steps Taken to Address Allegation In Translation
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights 69 Africa Group - Score Breakdown Latin America and Caribbean Group - Score Breakdown 32 5 90 74 1 2% <1% 5% 5% <1%
346 20% 463 29% 791 50% 1,211 78 69% 4%
136 119 9% 7% Western Europe and Other Eastern Europe Group - Score Group - Score Breakdown Breakdown 23 130 27 4% 23% 196 5% 180 35% 32%
163 29%
68 12% 26 5%
68 12% 103 142 18% 25%
No Response Immaterial Response Violation Rejected Without Substantiation Responsive but Incomplete Steps Taken to Address Allegation In Translation
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights 70 APPENDIX G
STATUS OF COUNTRY VISITS (as of June 2010) V V egion egion R R NSI NSI
/ / V V ending C ending C Country UN SI C Country UN SI C P P Afghanistan Asia NSI 15 3 Brazil GRULAC SI 15 2 Albania EEG SI 2 2 Brunei Asia NSI 0 0 Algeria Africa NSI 2 4 Darussalam Andorra WEOG NSI 0 0 Bulgaria EEG SI 1 4 Angola Africa NSI 4 4 Burkina Faso Africa NSI 2 1 Antigua and Burundi Africa NSI 15 4 GRULAC NSI 0 0 Barbuda Cambodia Asia NSI 28 5 Argentina GRULAC SI 5 7 Cameroon Africa NSI 1 1 Armenia EEG SI 2 2 Canada WEOG SI 7 4 Australia WEOG SI 6 1 Cape Verde Africa NSI 0 0 Austria WEOG SI 0 0 Central African Africa NSI 4 2 Azerbaijan EEG NSI 6 3 Republic Bahamas GRULAC NSI 0 0 Chad Africa NSI 2 4 Bahrain Asia NSI 2 1 Chile GRULAC SI 4 4 Bangladesh Asia NSI 4 10 China Asia NSI 4 11 Barbados GRULAC NSI 0 0 Colombia GRULAC SI 18 5 Belarus EEG NSI 6 4 Comoros Africa NSI 0 0 Belgium WEOG SI 3 0 Congo Africa NSI 0 1 Belize GRULAC NSI 0 0 Costa Rica GRULAC SI 2 0 Benin Africa NSI 2 0 Cote d’Ivoire Africa NSI 4 2 Bhutan Asia NSI 1 2 Croatia EEG SI 4 1 Bolivia GRULAC SI 4 4 Cuba GRULAC NSI 5 3 Bosnia and Cyprus Asia SI 0 0 EEG NSI 16 1 Herzegovina Czech Republic EEG SI 1 0 Botswana Africa NSI 2 1 Denmark WEOG SI 1 1
KEY: SI - Standing Invitation NSI - No Standing Invitation CV - Country Visits Received Pending CV - unanswered requested visits and visits that have been agreed upon in principle but remained unscheduled
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights 71 V V egion egion R R NSI NSI
/ / V V ending C ending C Country UN SI C P Country UN SI C P Djibouti Africa NSI 0 0 Haiti GRULAC NSI 20 1 Dominica GRULAC NSI 0 0 Holy See (O) none NSI 1 1 Dominican Honduras GRULAC SI 6 1 GRULAC NSI 2 1 Republic Hungary EEG SI 3 0 DPRK Asia NSI 0 4 Iceland WEOG SI 0 0 DRC Africa NSI 18 1 India Asia NSI 6 10 Ecuador GRULAC SI 12 2 Indonesia Asia NSI 11 10 Egypt Africa NSI 4 8 Iran Asia SI 6 7 El Salvador GRULAC SI 5 2 Iraq Asia NSI 2 4 Equatorial Africa NSI 3 3 Ireland WEOG SI 1 1 Guinea Israel WEOG NSI 4 7 Eritrea Africa NSI 0 4 Italy WEOG SI 5 2 Estonia EEG SI 4 0 Jamaica GRULAC NSI 2 1 Ethiopia Africa NSI 3 8 Japan Asia NSI 7 2 Fiji Asia NSI 2 2 Jordan Asia SI 1 1 Finland WEOG SI 0 0 Kazakhstan Asia SI 3 1 France WEOG SI 4 1 Kenya Africa NSI 7 5 FYROM EEG SI 2 1 Kiribati none NSI 0 0 Gabon Africa NSI 0 1 Kuwait Asia NSI 1 1 Gambia Africa NSI 0 3 Kyrgyzstan Asia NSI 5 3 Georgia EEG SI 6 3 Lao PDR Asia NSI 2 2 Germany WEOG SI 5 0 Latvia EEG SI 5 0 Ghana Africa SI 1 3 Lebanon Asia NSI 3 1 Greece WEOG SI 2 1 Lesotho Africa NSI 0 0 Grenada GRULAC NSI 0 0 Liberia Africa NSI 7 6 Guatemala GRULAC SI 18 2 Libyan Arab Africa NSI 0 3 Guinea-Bissau Africa NSI 0 0 Jamahiriya Guineau Africa NSI 0 1 Liechtenstein WEOG SI 1 0 Guyana GRULAC NSI 2 2 Lithuania EEG SI 2 0
KEY: SI - Standing Invitation NSI - No Standing Invitation CV - Country Visits Received Pending CV - unanswered requested visits and visits that have been agreed upon in principle but remained unscheduled
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights 72 V V egion egion R R NSI NSI
/ / V V ending C ending C Country UN SI C P Country UN SI C P Luxembourg WEOG SI 0 0 Pakistan Asia NSI 1 7 Madagascar Africa NSI 0 1 Palau Asia NSI 0 0 Malawi Africa NSI 0 2 Palestine & OPT Asia NSI 19 3 Malaysia Asia NSI 5 8 Panama GRULAC NSI 1 1 Maldives Asia SI 4 2 Papua New Africa NSI 1 3 Mali Africa NSI 0 1 Guinea Malta WEOG SI 1 0 Paraguay GRULAC SI 4 3 Marshall Islands Asia NSI 0 1 Peru GRULAC SI 5 6 Mauritania Africa NSI 3 3 Philippines Asia NSI 5 11 Mauritius Africa NSI 0 2 Poland EEG SI 5 0 Mexico GRULAC SI 15 6 Portugal WEOG SI 1 0 Micronesia Asia NSI 0 0 Qatar Asia NSI 1 0 Republic of Moldova EEG SI 1 0 Asia SI 7 0 Korea Monaco WEOG SI 0 0 Romania EEG SI 8 3 Mongolia Asia SI 6 0 Russian Montenegro EEG SI 0 0 EEG NSI 9 10 Federation Morocco Africa NSI 4 2 Rwanda Africa NSI 1 1 Mozambique Africa NSI 2 3 Samoa Asia NSI 0 0 Myanmar Asia NSI 9 5 San Marino WEOG SI 0 0 Namibia Africa NSI 0 1 Sao Tome Africa NSI 0 0 Nauru Asia NSI 0 1 Principe Nepal Asia NSI 6 9 Saudi Arabia Asia NSI 2 6 Netherlands WEOG SI 4 0 Senegal Africa NSI 3 4 New Zealand WEOG SI 2 0 Serbia EEG SI 3 1 Nicaragua GRULAC SI 3 6 Serbia and EEG SI 8 1 Niger Africa NSI 3 0 Montenegro Nigeria Africa NSI 3 8 Seychelles Africa NSI 0 1 Norway WEOG SI 2 0 Sierra Leone Africa SI 1 5 Oman Asia NSI 1 1 Singapore Asia NSI 2 2
KEY: SI - Standing Invitation NSI - No Standing Invitation CV - Country Visits Received Pending CV - unanswered requested visits and visits that have been agreed upon in principle but remained unscheduled
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights 73 V V egion egion R R NSI NSI
/ / V V ending C ending C Country UN SI C Country UN SI C P P Slovakia EEG SI 1 0 Tonga Asia NSI 0 0 Slovenia EEG SI 1 0 Trinidad and GRULAC NSI 1 1 Solomon Islands Asia NSI 0 0 Tobago Somalia Africa NSI 10 1 Tunisia Africa NSI 2 4 South Africa Africa SI 9 5 Turkey WEOG SI 12 5 Spain WEOG SI 4 3 Turkmenistan Asia NSI 1 9 Sri Lanka Asia NSI 7 7 Tuvalu Asia NSI 0 0 St. Kitts and UAE Asia NSI 2 2 GRULAC NSI 0 0 Nevis Uganda Africa NSI 6 2 St. Lucia GRULAC NSI 0 0 Ukraine EEG SI 4 0 St. Vincent and United Kingdom GRULAC NSI 0 0 the Grenadines of Great Britain WEOG SI 11 0 Sudan Africa NSI 21 7 and Northern Ireland Suriname GRULAC NSI 0 0 Uruguay GRULAC SI 1 2 Swaziland Africa NSI 0 1 USA WEOG NSI 14 7 Sweden WEOG SI 3 0 Uzbekistan Asia NSI 1 8 Switzerland WEOG SI 1 0 Vanuatu Asia NSI 0 0 Syrian Arab Asia NSI 0 3 Republic Venezuela GRULAC NSI 1 3 Tajikistan Asia NSI 3 1 Vietnam Asia NSI 3 6 Tanzania Africa NSI 1 3 Yemen Asia NSI 3 4 Thailand Asia NSI 4 11 Zambia Africa SI 1 2 Timor-Leste Asia NSI 3 4 Zimbabwe Africa NSI 0 9 Togo Africa NSI 2 1
KEY: SI - Standing Invitation NSI - No Standing Invitation CV - Country Visits Received Pending CV - unanswered requested visits and visits that have been agreed upon in principle but remained unscheduled
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights 74 APPENDIX H METHODOLOGY FOR ANALYZING GOVERNMENT REPLIES TO U.N. SPECIAL PROCEDURES COMMUNICATIONS
n evaluating the work of the UN Human Rights communication, we focused on the content of the Special Procedures and their effects on state reply as it relates to the specific human rights vio- Ibehavior, we looked closely at the communica- lation alleged by the original Special Procedure tions they issue to governments, which comprise communication. a key part of their mandates. These communica- tions typically convey allegations of an ongoing or Government responses to Special Procedure imminent human rights violation that falls within communications were assigned one of the follow- the mandate of one or more Special Procedures, ing five categories: No Response (NR), Immate- who raise these allegations by letter or urgent ap- rial Response (IM), Violation Rejected Without peal to the relevant government. Governments Substantiation (VR), Responsive but Incomplete are expected to reply to the mandate holder in (RI), or Steps Taken to Address Allegations (ST). a timely manner with all information regarding Responses that were not available due to transla- the allegations, including, where appropriate, the tion issues were marked with In Translation (in). steps the government has taken to address the hu- A brief description of each category follows. Ex- man rights violation alleged in the Special Proce- amples are meant to expound each classification dure’s communications.132 We analyzed these gov- but do not serve to limit the category’s applica- ernment responses to 19 current mandate hold- tion to the details contained therein. The Working ers’ communications (17 Special Rapporteurs Groups on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD) and En- and 2 Working Groups) over a five-year period forced or Involuntary Disappearances (WGEID) (2004-2008), with the goal of deriving conclu- were assessed with the same categories but have sions and making recommendations for strength- additional classifications to accommodate their ening the effectiveness of Special Procedures as unique working methods.133 a mechanism for influencing state behavior and advancing human rights at the country level. NR – No Response: Government has not replied at all to the Special Procedure communication. Replies by governments to communications sent by UN Special Procedures vary in their timeli- IM – Immaterial Response: Government replies ness, content and responsiveness. When analyz- in writing to the Special Procedure communica- ing a government’s reply to a Special Procedure tion, but the response does not contain a material
132 See UN HRC Res. 5/2, “Code of Conduct for Special Procedures Mandate Holders of the Human Rights Council,” para. 1. 133 For more information on the Working Groups, see p. XX
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights 75 response to the human rights violation alleged in Example: Government reply notes the communication. merely that the allegation was looked into and found to be false, without de- . Includes responses in which a government scribing investigation in any detail. merely acknowledges receipt of a Special Example: Government reply provides Procedure communication or otherwise some information regarding its investiga- provides a pro forma reply with little to no tion, but not enough to determine wheth- substantive information. er the steps taken were adequate to ad- dress the alleged human rights violation. . Includes responses in which a government provides irrelevant information that does RI – Responsive but Incomplete: Government re- not address the underlying human rights ply responds to and addresses the violation alleged violation alleged by the Special Procedure: by the Special Procedure communication, but the reply either does not fully respond to the allegations Example: A government responds with or, for a communication referencing multiple indi- additional facts about the matter or with viduals or violations, the government reply responds information about human right protec- only with regard to some. Also included are respons- tion broadly in the state but does not ad- es that indicate that an investigation has been or- dress the underlying violation. dered or commenced but is not yet concluded.
VR – Violation Rejected Without Substantia- . Includes responses where a Special Proce- tion: Government replies to reject the allegation dure communication makes reference in that a human rights violation occurred, but does a single communication to multiple indi- not provide sufficient information to substantiate viduals whose human rights were violated, its denial of the allegation. but a government reply includes responsive information for some but not all of these . Includes replies in which a government cat- individuals. egorically denies the violation
Example: Special Procedure commu- Example: Government reply simply in- nication indicates that six persons were dicates that no such violation occurred. victims of human rights violations, but Example: Government reply states that the government reply only provides ad- it never engages in the acts that com- equate information about four of these prise the alleged violation. individuals and provides no or incom- Example: A government responds to plete information regarding the other indicate why the victim of the human two individuals. rights violation merited certain treat- ment without addressing alleged human . Includes responses where the government rights violation. reply does not completely address the violation(s) alleged in the Special Proce- . Includes replies in which a government de- nies the violation but fails to provide suf- dure communication. ficient information to support its denial, or fails to provide information that indicates Example: Special Procedure commu- that an adequate investigation occurred. nication states that an individual was
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights 76 victim of two violations and the govern- Example: Government undertook ad- ment response indicates that one viola- equate investigation and concluded that tion was subject to adequate investiga- violation did occur, and prosecution of tion and concluded that it did or did wrongdoer is ongoing. not occur, but the response provides no information regarding the second alle- . Include situations where government con- gation. cludes that allegations are not well-found- ed, if the government investigation that . Includes responses where a government reaches this conclusion appears adequate investigation has been ordered or com- to give the reviewer confidence that the in- menced but is not yet complete, and where vestigation was appropriate. such investigation appears to be adequate in its design. . Includes situations where the underlying human rights violation is denied by the ST – Steps Taken to Address Allegations: Gov- government, but only in situations where ernment reply indicates that an adequate investiga- such a denial is founded upon an adequate tion is completed, and/or that concrete steps have or complete investigation of the allegations. been taken to address and/or remedy the human rights violation. When determining the legitimacy of an investi- gation, researchers considered features, including . Includes situations where the government but not limited to, the independence of the au- explains what measures were taken to ad- thority in charge, the date of commencement of dress the violation: the investigation, indication of official character, and the quality and number of documents and Example: Government undertook ad- witnesses referenced. equate investigation and concluded that violation did occur, and took steps to In select cases, government replies concurrently punish offenders and/or provide rem- satisfied several category areas—particularly edy for victim when responding to communications involving Example: Government undertook ad- more than one individual. Many of these cases equate investigation and concluded that fit in the RI category which provides space for an violation did not occur, and investiga- assorted government response while others were tion was appropriate in its scope and determined a best fit elsewhere. importance.
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights 77 APPENDIX I LIST OF INTERVIEWS
CURRENT AND FORMER MANDATE HOLDERS Philip Alston Former Special Rapporteur Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions Shamsul Bari Independent Expert on Somalia Cherif Bassiouni Former Independent Expert on the situation of human rights in Afghanistan Jorge Bustamante Special Rapporteur on Human Rights of Migrant Workers Santiago Corcuera Member, Working Group on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances Oliver de Frouville Member, Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances Yakin Erturk Former Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women Gustavo Gallon Former Special Representative on the human rights situation in Equatorial Guinea Robert Goldman Former Independent Expert on Counterterrorism and Human Rights Jose Gomez del Prado Member, Working Group on the use of Mercenaries Paul Hunt Former Special Rapporteur on the Right to Health Asma Jahangir Former Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion Walter Kalin Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Internally Displaced Persons Miloon Kothari Former Special Rapporteur on Adequate Housing Frank La Rue Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression Gay McDougall Independent Expert on Minorities Najat M’jid Special Rapporteur on Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography Githu Muigai Special Rapporteur on Contemporary forms of Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance Vernor Munoz Villalobos Special Rapporteur on Right to Education Vitit Muntarbhourn Former Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea Bacre Ndiaye Former Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions Manfred Nowak Special Rapporteur on Torture Akich Okola Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in Burundi Diana Orentlicher Former Independent Expert on combating impunity Paulo Pinheiro Former UN Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in Burundi and in Myanmar Nigel Rodley Former Special Rapporteur on Torture Raquel Rolnik Special Rapporteur on Adequate Housing Sima Samar Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Situation in Sudan Magdalena Sepulveda Independent Expert on Poverty Surya Subedi Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in Cambodia Theo Van Boven Former Special Rapporteur on Torture
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights 78 GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS Paula Agudelo Human Rights Group, Attorney General of Medellin, Colombia Irune Aguirrezabo Director of European Affairs, Basque Government, Spain Luis Alfonso de Alba Permanent Representative of Mexico to the UN Bente Angell-Hansen Permanent Representative of Norway to Geneva Sr. Arana Ezker Batua, Basque Political Party , Spain Fernando Arias Former Director of Office of Human Rights, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Spain Abdelhadi Attobi Ombudsman of Morocco Omar Azziman Moroccan Ambassador to Spain, former Minister of Justice Carolina Barco Ambassador of Colombia to the US Sr. Basabe ARALAR, Basque Political Party, Spain Henrik Bergquist Head of Section for Human Rights, Department for International Law, Human, Rights and Treaty Law, Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Sweden Nacer Bourita Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Morocco Carmen Bujan Director General for Strategic Affairs and Terrorism, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Spain Rafael Bustamante Director of Human Rights, Ministry of Justice and Interior, Colombia Andres Cardona Secretary of Government, Antioquia, Colombia Mark Cassayre First Secretary, US Mission to Geneva Ivan Cepeda Member of Parliament and Human Rights Activist, Colombia Yuniyanti Chuzaifah National Human Rights Commission on Violence Against Women (Komnas Perem- puan), Indonesia Gabriel Cremades Foreign Policy Advisor, Office of the President, Spain Hans Dahlgren Permanent Representative of Sweden to Geneva Piet De Klerk Deputy Permanent Representative of the Netherlands to the United Nations Jorge Domecq Director General for UN, Global Affairs and Human Rights at Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Spain Juan Duarte Director of the Office of Human Rights, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Spain Jorge Eastman Vice Minister for Policy and International Affairs, Ministry of Defense, Colombia Mahjoub El Haiba Conseil Consultatif des Droits de l’Homme, Morocco Sylvia Escobar Ambassador at Large for Human Rights, Spain Clemencia Forero Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs, Colombia Ahmed Gamaleldin Ihab Deputy Permanent Representative, Minister Plenipotentiary, Egypt Gloria Gaviria Director of Human Rights, Ministry of Social Protection, Colombia Gladys Gil Human Rights Adviser, Government of Antioquia, Colombia Mirko Giulietti Deputy Office Director, Swiss Mission to Geneva Juan Carlos Gomez former Director of Human Rights, Ministry of Defense, Colombia Juan Jose Gomez Camacho Permanent Representative of Mexico to the United Nations and Other International Organizations in Geneva Manuel Gomez Vaz Secretary General, Ministry of Housing, Spain Liesbeth Goossens Attache, Permanent Mission of Belgium Thomas Greminger Head of Political Affairs Division, Department of Foreign Affairs, Switzerland
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights 79 Arjen Hamburger Ambassador-at-Large for Human Rights, the Netherlands Ralf Heckner Head of Human Rights Policy Section, Department of Foreign Affairs, Switzerland Yves Heller First Secretary, Embassy of Switzerland to Colombia Premonto Hendrasmoro Director, Office of Multilateral Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Indonesia Edith Claudia Hernandez Director of Human Rights, Ministry of Defense, Colombia Ines Ibanez Director of Human Rights, Basque Government, Spain Sr. Iturrate Partido Nacionalista Vasco, Spain Robert Jackson Deputy Chief of Mission, US Embassy in Morocco Laura Jaramillo Consultant, Mayor’s office of Medellin, Colombia Sergio Jaramillo former Vice Minister of Defense, Colombia Melanie Khana Legal Advisor, US Mission to Geneva Nar Kholis Vice Chair, National Human Rights Commission (Komnas Ham), Indonesia John Kissane Branch Head, Rights Security and Detention, Ministry of Justice, UK Mark Lagon Former Ambassador-at-Large, Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons, USA Inigo Lamarca Ombudsman of the Basque Country, Spain Maixabel Lasa Director of the Office of Attention for Victims of Terrorism, Basque Government, Spain Alastair Long Head, Human Rights Office, Foreign & Commonwealth Office, UK Faustino Lopez de Foronoda Secretary General, Office of the Basque Ombudsman, Spain Beatriz Lorenzo Didic Political Counselor, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Spain Sergio Mantilla Brigadier General, Antioquia, Colombia Adriana Mejia Vice Minister for Multilateral Affairs, Colombia Jack Melamed Director for Human Rights, Embassy of Switzerland to Colombia Jorge Melguizo Acting Mayor of Medellin, Colombia Cesar Mogo Chief of Staff, Ministry of Labor and Immigration, Spain Enrique Mugica Herzog Ombudsman of Spain Amy Ostermeier Office of International Organizations, US State Dept Michael Pan Senior Advisor, US Mission to the United Nations Luis Alfredo Parra Advisor, Office of the Mayor of Medellin, Colombia Alma Perez First Secretary, Permanent Mission of Colombia Ana Peyro Advisor, Ministry of Justice, Spain Sihasak Phuangketkeow Permanent Representative of Thailand to the United Nations Office and other International Organizations in Geneva, President of the Human Rights Council Jenny Pickrell Head of Human Rights Office, Ministry of Justice, UK Elsi Pilar Cuello Vice President of Supreme Court, Colombia Carlos Portales Permanent Representative of Chile and Vice President of the Human Rights Council Matthew Preston Head, International Security and Institutions Research Group, Foreign & Commonwealth Office, UK Arantza Quiroga President, Basque Parliament, Spain Luis Alfredo Ramos Botero Governor of Antioquia, Colombia Margarita Rey Director of Human Rights, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Colombia
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights 80 Mrs. Roostiawati Director of Overseas Manpower Placement, Directorate General of Manpower Placement Development, Ministry of Manpower and Transmigration, Indonesia Abderrazak Rouwane Conseil Consultatif des Droits de l’Homme, Morocco Dimas Samodra Rum Director of Human Rights Cooperation, Directorate General of Human Rights, Department of Law and Human Rights, Indonesia Ricardo Ruru Assistant to the Foreign Minister, Indonesia Rafa Sainz de Rozas Coordinator of Prison Policy, Office of the Basque Ombudsman, Spain Victoria Sanchez Chief of Staff, Ministry of Interior, Spain Francisco Santos Vice President of the Republic, Colombia Eric Schwartz Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees and Migration, USA Christian Strohal Former Austrian Ambassador to Luxembourg Bonanza Taihitsu Deputy Director for Humanitarian Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Indonesia Catalina Uribe Director of Victims Program, Medellin, Colombia Carlos Vallejo Director of Human Rights, Government of Antioquia, Colombia Asier Vallejo Chief of Staff, Office of the Basque Ombudsman, Spain Maryem Van den Heuvel Deputy Director for Human Rights, Gender, Good Governance and Humanitarian Aid, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Netherlands Alex Van Meeuwen Permanent Representative of Belgium and President of Human Rights Council Jairo Varfas Personero de Medellin, Colombia Makarim Wibisono Advisor on Foreign Affairs to Speaker of the House of Representatives, former Ambassador to Geneva, Indonesia Hasan Wirayuda Former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Indonesia CIVIL SOCIETY Alfredo Abad Comisión Española de Ayuda al Refugiado (CEAR) Virgina Alvarez Amnesty International - España Fatima Ayub Open Society Foundation Tania Baldwin Amnesty International Gabriel Bustamante Viva la Ciudadania Kamala Chandrakirana Founder, Indonesia’s Commission on Violence Against Women CIMW (Centre for Indonesian Migrant Worker) Mildrey Corrales Coordinación Colombia Europa Estados Unidos Phillipe Dam Human Rights Watch - Geneva Sam Daws United Nations Association of the UK Julie DeRivero Human Rights Watch Rafendi Djamin Coordinator, Indonesia’s NGO Coalition for International Human Rights Anthony Dworkin European Council on Foreign Relations Javier Elorrieta Fundacion para la Libertad ELSAM (Institute for Policy Research and Advocacy) Felice Gaer Director, Jacob Blaustein Institute for the Advancement of Human Rights Jim Goldston Founding Executive Director, Open Society Justice initiative Felipe Gomez Isa Institute of Human Rights, Universidad de Deusto Juan Gonzalez Asamblea Permanente por la Paz
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights 81 Piluca Hernandez Association Pro Derechos Humanos Andrew Hudson Human Rights First Agustin Jimenez Committee of Solidarity with Political Prisoners Mercedes Jimenez Association Al Khaima John Kamm Director, Dui Hua Sarah Knuckley Senior Advisor to the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial executions Director, Project on Extrajudicial Executions Center for Human Rights and Global Justice, New York University Saddik Lahrach Forum Marocain pour la Vérite et la Justice Martha Lopez Asociacion Campesina de Antioquia Helena Malena Garon Fundamental par la Situacion de los Menores Subsaharianos Mikel Mancisidor UNESCO ETXEA Sr. Maneiro Unión Progreso y Democracia Maria McFarland Human Rights Watch Cesar Meudoza Fundacion Suma Paz Asmara Nababan Founder, Indonesia’s National Human Rights Commission Habib Nassar International Center for Transitional Justice Maria Neophytou Equality and Human Rights Commission Vincent Nicod Head of Delegation, ICRC Indonesia Ariel Palacios Conferencia Nacional de Organizaciones Afrocolombianos Sejal Parmar Article 19 Sr. Pastor Partido Socialista Vasco, Spain Martha Lucia Pena Instituto Popular de Capacitacion Bjorn Petersson International Service for Human Rights Russell Pickard Open Society Foundation Emigdio Pino Asociación de Afrodescendientes Claudia Ramirez Sisma Mujer Andrea Restrepo Mesa de Mujer y Conflicto Armado Ana Maria Rodriguez Colombian Commission of Jurists Javier Ruiz Fundacion Comisión Española de Ayuda al Refugiado (CEAR) Eduardo Ruiz Institute of Human Rights, Universidad de Deusto Natalie Samarasinghe United Nations Association of the UK Maria Eugenia Sanchez Casa de la Mujer Jose Luciano Sanin Escuela Nacional Sindical Patrizia Scannela Amnesty International Ronald Schmidt Ludwig Boltzmann Institute of Human Rights, Vienna Hina Shamsi Senior Advisor to the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial executions Director, Project on Extrajudicial Executions Center for Human Rights and Global Jus- tice, New York University Chadi Sidhoum Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Network Katrine Thompsen International Service for Human Rights Sylvie Thoral Deputy Head of Delegation, ICRC Indonesia
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights 82 Isabeel Tschan Ludwig Boltzmann Institute of Human Rights, Vienna Sr. Urquijo Partido Popular Vasco, Spain Hernando Valencia Villa Asociación Española para el Derecho Humano a la Paz Reinaldo Villalba Colectivo de Abogados José Alvear Restrepo Jane Winter British Irish Rights Watch Alberto Yepes Coordinación Colombia Europa Estados Unidos U.N. OFFICIALS Heike Alefsen Coordinator of Special Procedures Division Louise Arbour Former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Jane Conners Chief of Special Procedures Branch, OHCHR Abdelhamid el Jamri UN Expert, Office of High Commissioner for Human Rights Nicolas Fasel Human Rights Specialist in Research Division Bahram Gazi Former Assistant to UN Special Rapporteur on Adequate Housing Karim Ghezraoui Coordinator of the “Groups in Focus Unit”, Special Procedures Division, OHCHR Christophe Golay Former Assistant to Special Procedure on Right to Food Mireya Guzman Assistant to Special Rapporteur on Migrants Kyung-wha Kang Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights Anders Kompas Director of Field Offices Branch, OHCHR Rizal Malik UNDP, Indonesia Antonio Menendez Staffer, OHCHR in Colombia Craig Mokhiber Former Deputy Director, OHCHR New York Jessica Neuwirth Director, OHCHR New York Jesus Pena Staffer, OHCHR in Colombia Mireya Pena Human Rights Officer at the UN Navanethem Pillay High Commissioner for Human Rights Thierry del Prado Assistant to Special Rapporteur on the Right to Education Jonathan Prentice Former Director of Human Rights, office of UN Resident Coordinator, Indonesia Charles Radcliffe Chief, Donor & External Relations Section, OHCHR Christian Salazar Director, OHCHR in Colombia Felipe Sanchez Director, OHCHR Sub-Office in Medellin Mohamed Serifi DUN P/UNICEF Director, Morocco Shahrzad Tadjbakhsh Chief of Staff to High Commissioner for Human Rights and former assistant to Independent Expert on Afghanistan Eric Tistounet Secretary, Human Rights Council Johannes Van der Klaauw UNHCR Director, Morocco
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights 83 APPENDIX J FEBRUARY 2010 STATEMENT OF EXPERTS AND ADVOCATES
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights 84 CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights 85 CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights 86 CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights 87 Strengthening the UN Human Rights System: A Discussion with Human Rights Defenders February 16-17, 2010 Washington, D.C.
PARTICIPANTS Hamidah Marican has been the executive direc- tor of the Malaysian organisation Sisters in Islam Kamala Chandrakirana was a founder of Indo- (SIS) since July 2009. nesia’s National Commission on Violence against Women and served as its Chairperson from 2003- Juan E. Mendez is a Visiting Professor of Law at 2009. the American University and former UN Special Advisor to the Secretary General on the preven- Roberta Cohen is a nonresident Senior Fellow at tion of genocide. the Brookings Institution and Senior Advisor to the Special Representative of the Secretary Gen- Julia Neiva is one of the founders of Conectas eral on the human rights of internally displaced Human Rights, a leading NGO in Brazil, and cur- persons. rently is the coordinator for its Justice Program.
Yuri Dzhibladze is the president of the Center Michael O’Flaherty is a Professor of Applied Hu- for the Development of Democracy and Human man Rights and Co-director of the Human Rights Rights, a Moscow-based public policy and advo- Law Centre at the University of Nottingham and cacy NGO. a Member of the UN Human Rights Committee.
Olawale Fapohunda is a leading human rights lawyer in Nigeria and Managing Partner of the Ted Piccone is a Senior Fellow and Deputy Direc- Legal Resources Consortium. tor for Foreign Policy at the Brookings Institution.
Gustavo Gallon is the Director of the Colom- Paulo Sergio Pinheiro is Commissioner and bian Commission of Jurists and from 1999 to Rapporteur on Children for the Inter-American 2002 served as the UN Special Representative for Commission on Human Right and former Special Equatorial Guinea. Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Amiram Gill is Director of Advocacy at Physi- Myanmar and former Special Rapporteur on the cians for Human Rights - Israel (PHR-IL). situation of human rights in Burundi
Morton Halperin is Senior Advisor at the Open Bertrand Ramcharan is Professor of Internation- Society Institute and Open Society Policy Center. al Human Rights Law at the Geneva Graduate In- stitute of International Studies and former acting Peggy Hicks is the Global Advocacy Director for UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. Human Rights Watch. Andrea Rossi is Director of the Measurement & Hina Jilani is an Advocate of the Supreme Court Human Rights Program at the Carr Center for of Pakistan and former Special Representative of Human Rights Policy, Harvard University. the Secretary General for human rights defend- ers. Nancy Rubin is a former U.S. Representative to the UN Commission for Human Rights.
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights 88 Karin Ryan is Director of the Human Rights Pro- gram at the Carter Center.
David Weissbrodt is Regents Professor and Fredrikson & Byron Professor of Law, University of Minnesota and a former UN Special Rappor- teur on the rights of non-citizens.
Rich Williamson is a nonresident Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution and former U.S. Spe- cial Envoy to Sudan.
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights 89 ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Ted Piccone is a Senior Fellow and Deputy Mr. Piccone has written and published articles Director for Foreign Policy at the Brookings In- on U.S.-Latin American relations, international stitution. He also serves as an Advisor to the organizations, and human rights and democ- Club of Madrid, an association of over 70 former racy promotion policy. His most recent publi- heads of state and government engaged in efforts cations include The Obama Administration and to strengthen democracy around the world, and the Americas: Agenda for Change (eds. Abraham previously served as its Washington Office Direc- Lowenthal, Theodore J. Piccone and Laurence tor. From 2001-2008, Mr. Piccone was the Execu- Whitehead, Brookings Institution Press 2009); tive Director of the Democracy Coalition Project “Dangerous Times for Democracy,” Current His- (DCP), a research and advocacy organization tory, February 2010; “Democracies: In a League of working to promote international cooperation for their Own? (Brookings Foreign Policy Paper Se- democracy and human rights. ries #8, Oct. 2008); and Strategies for Democratic Change: Assessing the Global Response (eds. Ted Mr. Piccone served eight years as a senior foreign Piccone and Richard Youngs, DCP/FRIDE 2006). policy advisor in the Clinton Administration. He was the Associate Director of the Secretary of Mr. Piccone received a law degree from Colum- State’s Policy Planning Staff (1998-2001), Direc- bia University, where he was Editor-in-Chief of tor for Inter-American Affairs at the National the Columbia Human Rights Law Review and The Security Council (1996-98), and Policy Advisor Jailhouse Lawyer’s Manual. He received a B.A. in in the Office of the Secretary of Defense (1993- History magna cum laude from the University of 1996). Mr. Piccone also served as Counsel for the Pennsylvania (1984) where won the prize for best United Nations Truth Commission in El Salvador thesis in American history. He and his wife, Su- (1992-93) and as Press Secretary to U.S. Rep. Bob san Gibbs, reside in Washington with their three Edgar (1985-87). children.
CATALYSTS FOR RIGHTS The Unique Contribution of the U.N.’s Independent Experts on Human Rights 90 Foreign Policy October 2010 at BROOKINGS Catalysts for R ights:
The Unique Contribution of the UN’s on Human Rights Independent Experts
Catalysts for Rights: The Unique Contribution of the UN’s Independent Experts on Human Rights
Ted Piccone Ted Piccone
BROOKINGS 1775 Massachusetts Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20036 www.brookings.edu