UN: Spotlight on HR investigators

Thalif Deen

The Human Rights Council (HRC) in Geneva is seeking the right to implicitly retaliate against human rights investigators — officially known as special rapporteurs — who are critical of abuses by member states.

The 38 special rapporteurs, who focus either on investigating specific countries or hold broader mandates such as torture, disappearances or arbitrary executions, usually serve two terms of three years each.

But the HRC now wants all mandate-holders to be formally reappointed after they complete their first three-year term, giving the Council the option to refuse renewal.

The London-based human rights group Amnesty International (AI) has described this as an attempt to “intimidate” the U.N.’s “independent human rights experts”.

Tania Baldwin-Pask, an adviser to AI’s International Law and Organizations Programme, told IPS the effects of this initiative reach far beyond a single mandate or mandate- holder.

“If accepted, the proposal would mean that mandate-holders become the focus of negotiation, with one of the consequences being that mandate-holders are put at risk of undue political pressure by states,” she added.

Currently, there are 29 special rapporteurs with thematic mandates and nine with specific country mandates, making a total of 38.

According to a draft resolution tabled in Geneva Tuesday, “All mandate-holders on completion of their first term of three years would require re-appointment for the second term of three years by the Human Rights Council.”

The co-sponsors of the resolution include Cuba, Egypt (on behalf of the African Group), India, Russia, Sri Lanka — which was just voted off the Council in May and whose term expires this month — and Singapore, a non-member state of the Council.

Last year, Philip Alston, the special rapporteur on extra-judicial, summary or arbitrary executions, expressed his disappointment over the refusal of some member states to respond to charges of extra-judicial killings or for having turned down his requests for visits.

In a report to the General Assembly, he said that 27 member states failed to agree to his visits, including China, Russia, the United States, El Salvador, Kenya, Thailand, Israel, Uzbekistan and Venezuela.

“The fact that 90 percent of countries identified as warranting a country visit have failed to cooperate with the system and that the (Human Rights) Council has done nothing in response is a major indictment of the system,” said Alston, a professor of law at New York University and faculty director of its Centre for Human Rights and Global Justice.

“No matter how grave the issue and how blatant or compromised the conduct of the relevant government, the Human Rights Council remains entirely unmoved,” Alston said in his 21-page report, criticising the UN’s premier body on human rights.

Since his report, the United States has permitted Alston to study deaths in US-run detention facilities. Alston will visit Washington DC, New York, Montgomery (in the state of Alabama) and Austin (Texas) through June 30, where he is expected to meet with federal and local government officials and representatives of several non-governmental organisations.

While welcoming Alston’s fact-finding mission, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) said Monday his visit includes reporting on alleged killings in the US and overseas for which US Government and military officials may be responsible, and the failure to prosecute and punish those responsible.

The ACLU called on the US. state and local governments to fully cooperate with the special rapporteur.

“To claim the high moral ground and assert leadership on the issue of human rights, the US must do more to prevent deaths in custody and prosecute those who are responsible for inhuman and cruel treatment of detainees in US custody,” the ACLU said.

Alston will also study alleged killings and deaths in U.S. custody in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. During his four years as special rapporteur, Alston has been critical of states which have failed to cooperate with him, by failing to allow him to visit (including India, Indonesia, Nepal, Pakistan, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam), and by failing to engage with him on urgent appeals and other communications.

Last year, Alston visited both Sri Lanka and Philippines, as a result of which he produced public reports containing detailed recommendations. He has also undertaken in-depth analysis on some controversial issues, including the interpretation by states of international law which provides for imposition of the death penalty for the “most serious crimes”, the use of mandatory death sentences, transparency surrounding the death penalty, and the right to seek pardon and commutation of death sentences.

In its statement, AI said that until now, it has been the custom that mandate-holders serve a maximum period of six years.

This custom was carried over into the Council by virtue of its resolution 5/1, which provides the institutional foundation for the Council. Since September 2007, special procedure mandates and mandate-holders have been reviewed by the Council and continued on this basis.

To justify this change in the rules, AI said, a few states attacked individual mandate-holders whose mandates were being reviewed by the Council last week, including the special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and the special rapporteur on torture.

These states claimed that these mandate-holders had acted beyond the terms of the Council’s Code of Conduct for Special Procedures. The proposed decision has no requirement for objections to refer to any commonly accepted standards of conduct.

In the crudest terms, if a state dislikes what a special rapporteur does or says, all it has to do is to raise an objection to the continuation of the mandate-holder’s tenure.

Inter Press Service