33/26 Outcome of the high-level panel discussion on the occasion of the tenth anniversary of the Human Rights Council

GE.16-13360(E)



Human Rights Council Thirty-third session

Agenda items 2 and 3

Annual report of the United Nations High Commissioner

for Human Rights and reports of the Office of the

High Commissioner and the Secretary-General

Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil,

political, economic, social and cultural rights,

including the right to development

Outcome of the high-level panel discussion on the occasion of the tenth anniversary of the Human Rights Council

Summary report of the Office of the United Nations High

Commissioner for Human Rights

Summary

The present report is submitted pursuant to Human Rights Council decision 31/115.

It provides a summary of the high-level panel discussion on the occasion of the tenth

anniversary of the Human Rights Council, focused on its achievements and challenges,

held on 13 June 2016, during the thirty-second session of the Council.

I. Introduction

1. Pursuant to its decision 31/115, the Human Rights Council held a high-level panel

discussion on 13 June 2016 on the occasion of the tenth anniversary of the Human Rights

Council, focused on its achievements and challenges.

2. The panel discussion was chaired by the President of the Human Rights Council,

Choi Kyonglim. It opened with statements by the Deputy Secretary-General, Jan Eliasson,

and the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein.

3. The meeting provided an opportunity for States, international organizations and

other relevant stakeholders to underline and reiterate the commitment to the universal

promotion and protection of human rights for all, and to reflect on the achievements and

challenges of the Human Rights Council.

4. The panel was moderated by the Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights,

Kate Gilmore. The panellists included the nine former presidents of the Human Rights

Council: Joachim Rücker (Germany), Baudelaire Ndong Ella (Gabon), Remigiusz Achilles

Henczel (Poland), Laura Dupuy Lasserre (Uruguay), Sihasak Phuangketkeow (Thailand),

Alex Van Meeuwen (Belgium), Martin I. Uhomoibhi (Nigeria), Doru Costea (Romania)

and Luis Alfonso de Alba (Mexico) (by video message); as well as former Special

Rapporteur on the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation, Catarina de

Albuquerque, and United Nations Advocate at Human Rights Watch, Laila Matar.

II. Opening session

5. The President of the Human Rights Council noted in his opening remarks that, since

its first session 10 years ago, the Council’s work in promoting and protecting human rights

had indeed led to significant results worldwide, but the Council was still young and much

work still remained for it to reach its full potential. The victims and the vulnerable looked

to the Council for protection and the world pleaded with it to find solutions to grave

situations. Every person deserved to fully enjoy their human rights. As the world’s premier

body on human rights it was the Council’s duty to make that a reality.

6. The Deputy Secretary-General highlighted the universal periodic review, which

shone a light on all corners of the world and presented, for the first time, a picture of the

global state of human rights. The Council’s special procedures had played a pivotal role in

highlighting specific human rights issues around the globe and had helped shape the

Council’s agenda to cover an impressive breadth of themes. They fostered critical national

discourse on human rights and also acted as early warning and action mechanisms. The

Council also played a role in sounding alarm bells ahead of impending or worsening crises,

drawing global attention to deteriorating situations through its special sessions, seeking

urgent responses and reminding States to fulfil their human rights obligations by placing

victims in the centre. The Council was also a force for responding to protracted crises. Its

commissions of inquiries and fact-finding missions underscored the need for accountability

and stressed the importance of combating impunity and ensuring justice. The Council had

amplified the vital voice of civil society and the grassroots activists who complemented its

own work. Finally, its discussions in Geneva had stimulated debates in the Security Council

and the General Assembly in New York, strengthening the links between peace and

security, development, and human rights – the three pillars of the United Nations.

7. However, he noted these were troubled times and it was not possible to say that the

work was done. Tensions and deadly conflicts were on the rise, often exposing blatant

disregard for human rights and international humanitarian law. The number of refugees and

displaced persons was at an all-time high – over 60 million people: they were desperately

seeking safety and a better life, and yet often faced closed borders, walls and hostility.

Terrorism and violent extremism were serious threats to international peace and security.

Terrorists and violent extremist groups wanted to create fear, which in turn could lead to

polarization and division in societies and thus undermine the fundamental truth of the equal

worth of all human beings. He noted, however, that there were situations where abuses

were committed under the banner of fighting terrorist groups. Also, the space for civil

society and the media was shrinking in many parts of the world and human rights defenders

often faced threats and violence. At the same time, perpetrators of human rights violations,

more often than not, went free, leaving victims to struggle for decades for accountability.

Another disturbing reality was the continued discrimination and violence against women

and girls everywhere. Unprecedented levels of inequalities within and between nations

reminded of the need to place advancement of economic and social rights on a par with

civil and political rights. Deep social and economic crises and injustices and the devastating

effects of climate change contributed to leaving the human rights promise of the Charter of

the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights unfulfilled for far too

many people around the world.

8. Those negative trends must be reversed and human rights violations must be

prevented. The Deputy Secretary-General highlighted some of the available tools, including

the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the commitment therein to leave no one

behind and start with those furthest behind, as well as the Secretary-General’s ground-

breaking Human Rights Up Front Initiative, based on promoting early warning, on

principled and coordinated United Nations action and on closer engagement with Member

States in a spirit of dialogue, transparency and cooperation. Finally, there must be a

commitment to adopt human rights-based approaches to development that builds on free,

active and meaningful participation, accountability, non-discrimination in all areas,

including sexual orientation, equality and the empowerment of all.

9. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights said that the Council had

set up unprecedented processes for scrutiny of human rights issues and situations. It had

initiated vital investigations into new crises and chronic violations and formulated crucial

recommendations. The Council’s embrace of civil society was unmatched by any forum in

the United Nations system, which contributed greatly to the Council’s relevance. As the

world’s most authoritative forum on human rights, it was vital that the Council intensified

its focus on improving the implementation of human rights commitments on the ground to

ensure that the Council’s work became much more consequential. Looking ahead to the

next 10 years, he expressed hope that all actors would be addressing the root causes of

human rights violations much more forcefully.

10. Members of the Council needed to ensure that they consistently promoted all human

rights within their own countries. They could also ensure that their development assistance

policies worked to encourage other States to implement the recommendations of the human

rights mechanisms, and to uphold human rights. The Council could take a leadership role in

the drive for much more systematic follow-up to recommendations. On that point, his

Office would be publishing good practices on coordinated national follow-up to human

rights recommendations, which he hoped would inspire all Member States.

III. Summary of the panel discussion

11. Opening the panel as moderator, the Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights

said that the session was unprecedented in a number of ways, including because of the full

participation of representatives from all 193 States Members of the United Nations. She

introduced the former Presidents of the Human Rights Council as participants in the panel

discussion. She invited the panellists to appraise the Human Rights Council.

A. Contributions of panellists

12. Mr. de Alba, in a video message, highlighted the space opened up by the Council for

the participation and interaction of different governmental and non-governmental actors

with the special procedures and called for its reinforcement. The universal periodic review

mechanism had been the new tool that had allowed the Council to bring a broader, more

integrated and more balanced vision to human rights, and he called upon the Council to

ensure that the universal periodic review continued to evolve into a more in-depth exercise.

The relationship with the special procedures should be strengthened and the Council should

begin an exercise to become more focused, as the number of special procedures had

increased excessively and not necessarily in a complementary manner. Finally, he stressed

the need for the Council’s relationship with the General Assembly and other United Nations

bodies to evolve into that which it was originally intended, namely, that the Council was

actually a responsible and last resort body and that its decisions were not challenged in the

General Assembly, let alone by the Third Committee. That relationship with the Assembly,

a relationship that should also extend to the Security Council and other organs, was one of

the main outstanding tasks of the Council; States also needed to regain the sense of

individual responsibility in the Council, rather than resorting increasingly to group

positions and defensive attitudes.

13. Mr. Costea noted that the universal periodic review was a real accomplishment of

the Council, although it could work better with the support of governments. When asked

about the worst moment during his presidency, he referred to the challenges emanating

from the application of United Nations documentation rules to the documents for the

universal periodic review for the first time.

14. Ms. Dupuy Lasserre recalled that one of the messages that had emerged from the

first high-level panel on human rights mainstreaming was how working on respecting

women’s rights would lift millions out of poverty. That was a strong message, which must

be heard. She hoped that through the universal implementation of the Sustainable

Development Goals no one would be left behind and that the international community

would combat violence against women and all forms of discrimination, among other things.

It was those goals that brought together all human rights, including the right to development

and fundamental freedoms, which allowed the growth of inclusive and democratic societies.

15. Mr. Uhomoibhi said that one of the most enduring attributes of human rights was

their universality. In comparison with the Commission on Human Rights, the Council

upheld that principle, ensuring that the issues that it discussed were truly global and

universal and that everyone, including civil society, was allowed to participate and be a part

of the process.

16. Ms. Matar said that the Council represented a hope for victims of human rights

abuses all around the world. Civil society had been a part of some of the most successful

outcomes of the Council, bringing in information and working closely with delegations to

come up with creative solutions. However, challenges remained to civil society space and

its place at the table. Acts of intimidation and reprisals against human rights defenders that

engaged with the Council and its mechanisms unfortunately continued and the global

crackdown on civil society carried on. She pointed out that a prominent human rights

defender who attended the Council many times had been arrested on that very same day.

17. Mr. Rücker said the Council did well in addressing freedoms of expression and of

assembly and had become the central political forum for addressing human rights

worldwide, including through the universal periodic review. When looking back at the

previous 10 years, there were reasons to be proud and reasons not to be satisfied. When he

had taken over the presidency he had identified three topics to be focused on: strengthening

the relationship between New York and Geneva, including cooperation between the Human

Rights Council and the Security Council; the need to become more efficient in view of

tremendous inflation of the agenda of the Human Rights Council; and the need to have

more impact on the ground.

18. Mr. Henczel said that the universal periodic review was a success, as the only

mechanism that examined the human rights in all Member States in an equal manner. The

Council should focus even more closely on implementation of the recommendations

ensuing from the universal periodic review. Unsatisfactory progress of implementation was

often the result of insufficient funds, especially in the case of the least developed countries.

Recommendations submitted to those countries that required large investment should be

directly linked to pledges of finance or technical assistance. The High Commissioner for

Human Rights should highlight more clearly the assessment of the level of implementation

of accepted recommendations. It could perhaps issue an implementation assessment report

ahead of the review of every State.

19. Mr. Ndong Ella said that the Council now enjoyed a degree of authority, dignity and

credibility. Most of the topics that were not resolved in the Security Council were dealt

with by the Human Rights Council. During his mandate, with the permanent members of

the Security Council and emerging States as members of the Human Rights Council, there

had been a threat of politicization, polarization and confrontation. However, a constructive

dialogue had been achieved. The Council was a victim of its own success in terms of the

increasing number of meetings and resolutions. There was a need for a discussion with the

Administrative and Budgetary Committee regarding the insufficient funding for the Office

of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights for the implementation of

Council mandates.

20. Mr. Van Meeuwen stressed that to outsiders it often seemed that the Council sought

agreement and consensus at any cost, even at the cost of lowering ambition and betraying

its own mission. However, it was important to look into the political context in which the

Council operated, and seeking consensus often brought about a lot of political agreement.

There had been a situation when the Council had been at a stalemate for about 48 hours and

tense moments that could even have jeopardized the human rights system itself, but the

Council managed to succeed with the support of the Secretariat.

21. Ms. de Albuquerque recalled one of the achievements of the Council – the adoption

of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural

Rights, over whose negotiations she had presided. As a Special Rapporteur, it was very

rewarding to hear in interactive dialogues of the progress reported by some countries in

implementation at the national level of recommendations of the Special Rapporteurs in the

context of their country missions. Some of the challenges included not being allowed to

visit certain countries, the lack of resources and the lack of follow-up and implementation

of recommendations. She also regretted the lack of support to human rights by some

members of the United Nations family.

22. Mr. Phuangketkeow recalled the challenges during the review of the Human Rights

Council in 2010-2011 over which he presided. At first there had been no agreement on the

scope of the review, until it was decided that everything would remain on the table and

nothing would be agreed until everything was agreed. The outcome document represented

the limited areas of agreement that States had been ready to reach. The success of the

Council should not be measured by the number of resolutions, but by the impact it made on

the ground and to what degree it addressed the lives of people. A key question during the

review process was how to do better in addressing urgent situations and which tools, in

addition to special sessions, it could use to engage the concerned country early on,

voluntarily and constructively. The Council had considered voluntary briefings by the

country concerned, closed-door sessions and informal dialogue with the country concerned.

However, those formats could not be agreed upon because one side wanted to require the

consent of the country concerned, while the other wanted not to have that requirement and

have an automatic trigger mechanism. The conversation on how to deal with urgent

situations was important to the credibility of the Council and should continue between now

and the next review of the Council.

B. Interactive discussion

23. During the plenary discussion, the following States and other stakeholders delivered

statements:

(a) Representatives of States members of the Human Rights Council:

Bangladesh, China (on behalf of a group of countries), Cuba (on behalf of a like-minded

group of countries), Ecuador, Morocco (on behalf of International Organization of la

Francophonie), Portugal, Qatar (on behalf of the Arab Group), Saudi Arabia, South Africa

(on behalf of the African Group), Switzerland (on behalf of a group of countries), the

United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (on

behalf of a group of countries) and Viet Nam (on behalf of the Association of Southeast

Asian Nations);

(b) Representatives of observer States: Brazil (on behalf of the Community of

Portuguese Language-speaking Countries), Costa Rica (on behalf of a group of countries),

the Dominican Republic (on behalf of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean

States), Egypt (on behalf of a group of countries), Honduras, Iceland (on behalf of the

Group of Nordic Countries), Ireland (on behalf of a group of countries), Pakistan (on behalf

of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation) and Rwanda (on behalf of a group of

countries);

(c) Representatives of intergovernmental organizations: the European Union;

(d) Representatives of national human rights institutions: the Global Alliance of

National Human Rights Institutions;

(e) Representatives of non-governmental organizations: the Arab Commission

for Human Rights, CIVICUS – World Alliance for Citizen Participation (on behalf of a

group of non-governmental organizations), the International Service for Human Rights (on

behalf of a group of non-governmental organizations) and Rencontre Africaine pour la

défense des droits de l’homme;

(f) Representatives of other entities: the International Committee of the Red

Cross.

24. A number of additional participants requested the floor during the panel discussion

but could not deliver their statements owing to a lack of time.

(a) Representatives of States: Afghanistan, Albania, Armenia, Australia,

Bahamas, Belarus, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Botswana, Brazil, Canada, Chile,

Colombia, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, the Czech Republic, the Democratic

Republic of the Congo, Egypt, El Salvador, Estonia, Gabon, Georgia, Ghana, Greece,

Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait,

Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Malaysia, Maldives, Monaco,

Morocco, Namibia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, the Republic of

Korea, the Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Spain,

Sudan, Switzerland, Thailand, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Tunisia,

Turkey, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the United States of

America, Uruguay, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Viet Nam and Zambia;

(b) Representatives of intergovernmental organizations: the Council of Europe,

the International Development Law Organization and the World Trade Organization;

(c) Representatives of non-governmental organizations: American Association of

Jurists, China NGO Network for International Exchanges, Indian Council of South

America, Khiam Rehabilitation Center for Victims of Torture, Organisation internationale

pour les pays les moins avancés, Organization for Defending Victims of Violence, United

Nations Watch and Verein Sudwind Entwicklungspolitik.

25. Many speakers highlighted the achievements of the Council, such as: the

enhancement of the international human rights system, including through special

procedures and the universal periodic review; raising global awareness of human rights and

mainstreaming human rights within the United Nations system; drawing attention to

emerging human rights situations; developing cooperation with national human rights

institutions; and providing a space for civil society and human rights defenders to be heard.

26. Speakers welcomed the role of the Council in advancing human rights and

fundamental freedoms through constructive dialogue. Many speakers stressed the need to

respect the principles of universality, impartiality, objectivity, non-selectiveness,

transparency, constructive dialogue and cooperation within the work of the Council. They

also called for the promotion of all human rights and fundamental freedoms in an equal and

balanced manner, including the right to development. In that regard, speakers commended

the universal periodic review, which benefited from the participation of all Member States

and the implementation of its recommendations on the ground. Speakers also welcomed the

efforts of the Council to offer technical cooperation and capacity-building for human rights,

particularly to developing countries, with the support of the Office of the High

Commissioner. They also called on the Council to promote a range of other issues, such as

human rights education and training, the rule of law and multilingualism.

27. Various speakers addressed issues relating to institution-building, including the

review of the subsidiary relationship of the Council with the General Assembly in 2021;

preserving the mandate of the Council in accordance with General Assembly resolution

60/251; promoting the commitment of States members of the Council to uphold the highest

standards of human rights, cooperate with the Council and its mechanisms, and refrain from

abusing procedural devices; focusing more attention on the implementation of

recommendations and decisions of the Council and its mechanisms; developing the

interaction of the Council with the treaty bodies; and taking steps to ensure that the volume

of work did not undermine the substantive impact of the Council.

28. Several speakers addressed issues related to the work of the Council with civil

society, including: expanding the participation of national human rights institutions;

enhancing the participation of civil society and implementing a comprehensive policy on

intimidations and reprisals against those cooperating with the Council; providing more

space for civil society to organize events on the margins of the Council; promoting the

participation of a greater number of non-governmental organizations in the Council; and

advancing constructive dialogue.

29. Several speakers highlighted the need for the Council to respond adequately to

situations on the ground and focus more attention on early warning and prevention of

situations that can lead to mass atrocity crimes, including genocide, war crimes, ethnic

cleansing and crimes against humanity. In that regard, they noted the utility of information

provided by the High Commissioner, special procedure mandate holders, the treaty bodies

and civil society. Some speakers called on the Council to commit to addressing human

rights situations raised by the Secretary-General, the High Commissioner or the special

procedure mandate holders, and addressing other human rights situations based on

objective criteria. They also called for accountability for human rights violations to be

upheld.

C. Responses and concluding remarks

30. The moderator noted that, during the discussion it had been noted that the

performance of the Council in some areas seemed to have been reasonable and there had

been no mention of any failure. The Council had been encouraged to do better in

emergencies and in prevention. There had been a call for expansion of civil society space.

Comments had been made on the struggle against impunity, but also encouragement had

been given for much greater education and promotion of human rights. Some concerns had

also been expressed about the performance of the Council with regard to balance,

universality and indivisibility. The question was where the Council should improve.

31. Ms. Dupuy Lasserre said it was necessary to go beyond the discourse of cultural

diversity versus human rights; cultural diversity could not be invoked to undermine those

rights that were inherent to all people. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an

imperative norm in international law and therefore the Council must never passively accept

acts of slavery, violence against women, hate crimes and so on. The Council had to act

preventively and generate national capacity and the necessary political will.

32. Mr. Henczel stressed that everything necessary must be done to save the universality

of the universal periodic review mechanism and to avoid the existing tendency towards

bilateralization of the process; territorial disputes, for example, should not be raised during

the review. The Office of the High Commissioner and the Council should confront the

growing workload, including the growing number of panels, debates and resolutions, which

most delegations were not able to follow, particularly small and medium-sized missions in

Geneva.

33. Mr. Uhomoibhi called on the Council to strengthen its role in preventing crises. As

there was no alternative to the Human Rights Council, a world without the Council could

not be contemplated. The Council must stand out as a global moral compass and, as a last

bastion for the promotion and protection of human rights, it must not be ambushed for

political purposes or vested interests. The moment that it compromised its objectivity,

impartiality and neutrality, the Council would lose its credibility.

34. Mr. Van Meeuwen said that the political context in the final days of the previous

Commission on Human Rights had been extremely bad. The Council preserved the

universality of the human rights conventions and established itself in a central position on

human rights. It was important to focus on the core task of the Council, being effective on

the ground. The universal periodic review delivered results and was a concrete contribution

of the Council to improving effectiveness on the ground. The biggest challenge for the

Council was responding to crisis situations. It was also important to keep and develop the

role of civil society in the Council and outside. In that regard, what was happening in many

places on the ground was of significant concern.

35. Mr. Ndong Ella said it was vital for civil society to continue to play a key role in the

Human Rights Council. Civil society had a great impact because it could warn the Council

about situations of which the Council was not previously aware. The integrity and safety of

civil society had to be upheld. In that regard, the international community often condemned

reprisals against and intimidation of civil society representatives. It was important to

understand that the Council dealt with violations of human rights in States. However, it was

difficult for the Council to address cases in which non-State actors were involved. The

Council should reflect on how to address such cases in the future. He asked how a

commission of inquiry mandated by the Council could investigate violations committed by

Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant. It was also important for the Council to work with

regional human rights bodies. He stressed the need for technical assistance, noting that,

during his mandate, he had dealt with countries in post-conflict situations, which had had

difficulties in accepting the visit of Special Rapporteurs or commissions of inquiry. Instead

of taking a confrontational approach, the key was to promote education on human rights

and to have a pedagogic approach, stressing technical assistance and cooperation.

36. Ms. de Albuquerque said that she wished that the Council had a traffic-light system

signalling green, yellow or red to indicate the degree to which a country implemented

human rights recommendations. More attention should be paid to economic, social and

cultural rights, including in the context of the universal periodic review, special sessions of

the Council and commissions of inquiry, as violations of those rights were often root causes

of conflicts. She also called for more space for independent bodies. When Special

Rapporteurs interacted with the Council and reported on their country visits, it was

important that the voices of civil society would be heard. She expressed support for

cooperation with Member States to make sure that human rights were universally

implemented. However, she added that, when being confronted with violations of human

rights, there were moments when a spade had to be called a spade, in order to trigger action

and generate positive impact.

37. Mr. Costea said that the Council should do more to use its comprehensive box of

tools to their full potential. The Council should be more confident in itself and in its

achievements. He noted the importance of civil society and its role in the Council. He

encouraged dialogue and confidence-building measures between civil society organizations

and governments at the national and international levels. Effectiveness and prevention were

key issues.

38. Ms. Matar said that, while it was correctly noted that the Council was not in a formal

review process, the Council could be a learning institution that interrogated its own

practices. She concurred that the Council had pervasive selectivity, but expressed concern

that too often selectivity was used as an excuse to address fewer countries, rather than

more, and a handful of powerful countries and their allies with some of the most critical

human rights situations were able to avoid scrutiny. She noted that there were excellent

suggestions from the floor on how the Council could circumvent its own political nature, by

creating objective criteria and thresholds to guide decision-making processes around which

to take action on country situations or thematic issues at any given time. She also addressed

the issue of the standards for membership in the Council. In that regard, she called for the

improvement of the process for electing members of the Council by encouraging more

competition, having Member States articulate clear human rights-centred criteria for their

votes, and candidates articulate how they would progressively enhance human rights in

their countries and what criteria for cooperation with special procedures and United Nations

mechanisms at large they would follow during their membership.

39. Mr. Phuangketkeow shared the concern raised about politicization, but noted that

politics would always be a part of the Council simply because it was composed of States.

There were different views of human rights and, therefore, mutual respect and dialogue

were essential in the Council. The conversations within the Council must also include non-

governmental organizations. There was also a need to follow-up on the resolutions and

ensure their implementation on the ground. The number of armed conflicts had declined,

but their severity and impact on civilians had increased. The Council would be addressing

more and more human rights violations in the context of armed conflict. Therefore, it was

important to consider the status of the Council, in view of human rights being one of the

three pillars of the United Nations. The relationship with the Security Council was also

important in that context; although it was a sensitive issue, it should be considered so that

the Council could have an impact on the lives of people.

40. Mr. Rücker said that efficiency, effectiveness and New York-Geneva relations were

among the solvable problems. Participants in the discussion had made it very clear that

effectiveness with regard to the impact on the ground was the most important issue. The

Council had tremendous assets in that regard, including the participation of civil society,

which must be protected. The universal periodic review was another asset and the process

needed to be strengthened and streamlined and to have indicators for the implementation of

recommendations. The membership of the Council was a political issue, but civil society

provided tools to track what States had promised and how they had performed in the

Council, and that should play a role in elections of new Members to the Council. A number

of initiatives for improving efficiency could be undertaken within the framework of the

institution-building package, including measures to reduce the number of resolutions

adopted by the Council. At the next review of the Council, Member States should consider

placing the Council on an equal footing with the security and peace pillar and the

development pillar by making the Human Rights Council a principal organ in the United

Nations system.

41. Mr. Ndong Ella said that more needed to be done to strengthen synergies between

Geneva and New York. In that context, issues that had already been addressed in Geneva,

such as the issue of reprisals dealt with by the Council in its resolution 24/24, should not be

seized by the Third Committee in New York. In that regard, it was particularly important to

advance the proposal of making the Council a truly independent body.

42. Ms. de Albuquerque said that States must come forward and support the Office of

the High Commissioner with more resources in order to respond to the needs expressed and

deliver on human rights education and making the Council more accessible to the public.

The Office should work more at the national level, including with national human rights

institutions and civil society organizations. In addition, non-governmental organizations

and special procedures should be involved in the process of the selection of new mandate

holders.

43. Concluding the discussion, the moderator noted that the greatest gift of the Human

Rights Council to the world was a Council that stood up unequivocally for the principles of

human rights for all, without excluding anyone and for the benefit of all.