United Nations Human Rights Council

On 15 March 2006, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution to replace the 60-year old Commission on Human Rights of the UN with the Human Rights Council (HRC). This important change took place at the same time as the Secretary General Kofi Annan’s efforts between 1997 and 2005 to reform the UN system regarding human rights protection mechanisms. Indeed, although it had accomplished significant improvement in promoting human rights,[1] the Commission had been heavily criticized due inter alia to its highly politicized composition and functioning.[2] While the Commission was directly dependent on the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), the Council was decided to be a General Assembly subsidiary organ and some of its composition and functioning aspects were reformed to engage in its de-politicization and to enhance respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms worldwide.

1. The HRC composition

The HRC, located in Geneva, is composed of 47 States elected for three years (renewable once; a State has to wait at least one year after two consecutive mandates to be a candidate once again) directly and individually by secret ballot by the majority of the members of the General Assembly.[3] Every year, a third of the Council is up for renewal. An equitable geographical repartition is respected regarding its composition based on the five regional groups: Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe, Latin America and Caribbean, and Western Europe and other. The election of members “shall take into account the contribution of candidates to the promotion and protection of human rights and their voluntary pledges and commitments made thereto.”[4]

The suspension of the rights of membership in the Council of a member of the Council that commits gross and systematic violations of human rights may also be decided by the General Assembly, by a majority of two-thirds (present and voting).

2. The HRC functions

2.1 Special procedures

As described by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR),

"[s]pecial procedures" is the general name given to the mechanisms established by the Commission on Human Rights and assumed by the Human Rights Council to address either specific country situations or thematic issues in all parts of the world. Currently, there are 28 thematic and 10 country mandates. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights provides these mechanisms with personnel, logistical and research assistance to support them in the discharge of their mandates.

Special procedures' mandates usually call on mandate holders to examine, monitor, advise and publicly report on human rights situations in specific countries or territories, known as country mandates, or on major phenomena of human rights violations worldwide, known as thematic mandates. Various activities can be undertaken by special procedures, including responding to individual complaints, conducting studies, providing advice on technical cooperation at the country level, and engaging in general promotional activities.

Amongst their activities, most Special Procedures receive information on specific allegations of human rights violations and send urgent appeals or letters of allegation to governments asking for clarification.

Mandate holders also carry out country visits to investigate the situation of human rights at the national level. Mandate holders typically send a letter to the Government requesting to visit the country, and, if the Government agrees, an invitation to visit is extended. Some countries have issued "standing invitations", which means that they are, in principle, prepared to receive a visit from any special procedures mandate holder.[5]

In 2007, global statistics[6] are summarized as 1003 total communications received (49% being joint communications), covering 2294 individuals (13% women), and communications were sent to 128 countries. Fifty-two percent of the Governments responded in 2007 (for all communications, including some from 2006). Regarding thematic issues addressed, the following chart was issued by the OHCHR[7]:

2.2 Confidential procedure

On 27 May 1970 the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) adopted the resolution 1503 (XLVIII), setting up a new confidential human rights complaint procedure before the Commission on Human Rights of the UN. Using this mechanism, groups or individuals could bring a complaint before the Commission relating to gross and reliably attested violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms.[8] Thirty years later, the procedure was amended on 16 June 2000 by ECOSOC resolution 2000/3 “to make it more efficient, to facilitate dialogue with the Governments concerned and to provide for a meaningful debate in the final stages of a complaint [...]”. Following the 2006 reform of the Commission –replaced by the Council on Human Rights– a new 1503 complaint procedure was established on 18 June 2007 to address consistent patterns of gross and reliably attested violations of all human rights and all fundamental freedoms occurring in any part of the world and under any circumstances. The 1503 procedure established in 1970 and reformed in 2000 served as a working basis to design the new mechanism, but was improved to ensure that the new complaint procedure would be “impartial, objective, efficient, victims-oriented and conducted in a timely manner”.

Commentators have criticized the 1503 procedure, pointing out its secrecy, confidentiality, slowness, complexity, and its political character, while others have underlined the advantages of such a procedure that offers an avenue, by nature universal (available to all victims), to spotlight human rights situations traditionally ignored. The new 1503 procedure is quite similar to the procedure established in 1970 and reformed in 2000 and is grounded on the same basic principles. However, procedural safeguards have been adopted in order to reduce the disadvantages of the old procedure that affected its effectiveness and credibility.

Two Working Groups – the Working Group on Communications (WGC) first and the Working Group on Situations (WGS) thereafter – are established to examine the communications before they can be transmitted to the HRC. Their work is confidential, based on consensus, and conducted in close cooperation with the State concerned. The main task of these groups is to examine the communications and to bring to the attention of the Council on consistent patterns of gross and reliably attested violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms. The decision of the Human Rights Council can be: to discontinue considering the situation; to keep the situation under review in requesting the State to provide future information or in appointing an independent and highly qualified expert to monitor the situation and report back; to discontinue reviewing the matter under the confidential procedure and to consider the same matter under a public procedure similar to the 1235 procedure; or to recommend the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to provide technical, capacity building assistance and advisory services to the country concerned.

The information concerning the use of the 1503 Procedure is, by its very nature, confidential, which renders the statistical and practical analysis almost impossible. The only information available would be the name of the countries concerned by a communication under the 1503 Procedure and the results of a procedure made public by decision of the HRC/Commission. Between 1970 and 2005, 98 States were subject of an examination under that Procedure, including 27 in Africa, 27 in Asia, 19 in Latin America, 18 in Eastern Europe, and seven Western States.[9] To get that result, supposedly several thousands of communications were lodged each year before the Commission.

2.3 Universal Periodic Review (UPR)[10]

The UN General Assembly resolution 60/251, establishing the HRC in 2006, introduced a major innovation when stating that the HRC shall

“[u]ndertake a universal periodic review, based on objective and reliable information, of the fulfilment by each State of its human rights obligations and commitments in a manner which ensures universality of coverage and equal treatment with respect to all States; the review shall be a cooperative mechanism, based on an interactive dialogue, with the full involvement of the country concerned and with consideration given to its capacity-building needs; [...]”[11]

On 18 June 2007, the HRC adopted a resolution establishing detailed procedure rules (periodicities, modalities, basis, outcomes, objectives etc.) during its fifth session[12]. The UPR will work on a 4-year cycle basis, during which all of the 192 UN member States will be examined under this procedure[13].

[1] Its first mandate was to elaborate international norms before submitting them to the General Assembly. The drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights constituted its first mission, in 1948. Its mandate was then extended, allowing it to take resolutions or reports, but also to deal with concrete situations of human rights violations. To this end, a Sub-Commission of 24 independent experts elected for 4 years. The Sub-Commission was suppressed with the 2006-2007 reforms. Finally, in the late 60’s, the ECOSOC took a resolution to allow the Commission to deal with complaints filed by individuals or NGOs about a consistent pattern of gross and reliably attested violations of human rights or fundamental freedoms, through public special procedures or a confidential one (the “1503 procedure”, created by ECOSOC resolution 1503, of 27 may 1970).

[2] Report of the Secretary-General of the UN, In larger freedom: towards development, security and human rights for all, 24 March 2005, p. 45:

“Yet the Commission’s capacity to perform its tasks has been increasingly undermined by its declining credibility and professionalism. In particular, States have sought membership of the Commission not to strengthen human rights but to protect themselves against criticism or to criticize others. As a result, a credibility deficit has developed, which casts a shadow on the reputation of the United Nations system as a whole.”

The composition of the Commission was of 53 States representatives, elected by the ECOSOC for 3 renewable years. Quite often States with highly negative outcomes regarding human rights were sitting in the Commission.

[3] UN General Assembly, Res. A/RES/60/251, 3 April 2006, para.7. For the actual composition of the HRC, please refer to website http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/membership.htm (visited on 13 March 2008), or to website http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/elections.htm for more precise results of the election.

[4] Ibid., para. 8.

[5] http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/chr/special/index.htm (visited on 13 March 2008).

[6] U.N. Special Procedures, Facts and Figures 2007, p. 17, online publication available at:

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/chr/special/docs/SP2007FactsFigures.pdf (visited on 13 March 2008). These figures are globally 10 to 20% inferior by comparison to the 2006 figures:

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/chr/special/docs/facts_figures_2006.pdf.

[7] U.N. Special Procedures, Facts and Figures 2007, ibid., p. 18.

[8] Although the reference to violations of human rights was made in resolution 1503, fundamental rights were only mentioned within ECOSOC res. 2000/3, U.N. Doc. E/RES/2000/3 (June 16, 2000).

[9] For more detailed figures regarding the 1503 and 1235 procedures, please refer to website:

http://www.ishr.ch/handbook/Annexes/CommProcs/1503outcms.pdf (visited on 13 March 2008).

[10] For detailed information on the subject, please refer to website:

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/upr/index.htm (visited on 13 March 2008).

[11] UN General Assembly, Res. A/RES/60/251, 3 April 2006, para. 5(e).

[12] Human Rights Council, Res. A/HRC/RES/5/1, 18 June 2007.

[13] To access the calendar regarding examination of States between 2008 and 2012, please refer to website:

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/upr/uprlist.pdf (visited on 13 March 2008).

United Nations Human Rights Council

On 15 March 2006, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution to replace the 60-year old Commission on Human Rights of the UN with the Human Rights Council (HRC). This important change took place at the same time as the Secretary General Kofi Annan’s efforts between 1997 and 2005 to reform the UN system regarding human rights protection mechanisms. Indeed, although it had accomplished significant improvement in promoting human rights,[1] the Commission had been heavily criticized due inter alia to its highly politicized composition and functioning.[2] While the Commission was directly dependent on the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), the Council was decided to be a General Assembly subsidiary organ and some of its composition and functioning aspects were reformed to engage in its de-politicization and to enhance respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms worldwide.

1. The HRC composition

The HRC, located in Geneva, is composed of 47 States elected for three years (renewable once; a State has to wait at least one year after two consecutive mandates to be a candidate once again) directly and individually by secret ballot by the majority of the members of the General Assembly.[3] Every year, a third of the Council is up for renewal. An equitable geographical repartition is respected regarding its composition based on the five regional groups: Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe, Latin America and Caribbean, and Western Europe and other. The election of members “shall take into account the contribution of candidates to the promotion and protection of human rights and their voluntary pledges and commitments made thereto.”[4]

The suspension of the rights of membership in the Council of a member of the Council that commits gross and systematic violations of human rights may also be decided by the General Assembly, by a majority of two-thirds (present and voting).

2. The HRC functions

2.1 Special procedures

As described by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR),

"[s]pecial procedures" is the general name given to the mechanisms established by the Commission on Human Rights and assumed by the Human Rights Council to address either specific country situations or thematic issues in all parts of the world. Currently, there are 28 thematic and 10 country mandates. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights provides these mechanisms with personnel, logistical and research assistance to support them in the discharge of their mandates.

Special procedures' mandates usually call on mandate holders to examine, monitor, advise and publicly report on human rights situations in specific countries or territories, known as country mandates, or on major phenomena of human rights violations worldwide, known as thematic mandates. Various activities can be undertaken by special procedures, including responding to individual complaints, conducting studies, providing advice on technical cooperation at the country level, and engaging in general promotional activities.

Amongst their activities, most Special Procedures receive information on specific allegations of human rights violations and send urgent appeals or letters of allegation to governments asking for clarification.

Mandate holders also carry out country visits to investigate the situation of human rights at the national level. Mandate holders typically send a letter to the Government requesting to visit the country, and, if the Government agrees, an invitation to visit is extended. Some countries have issued "standing invitations", which means that they are, in principle, prepared to receive a visit from any special procedures mandate holder.[5]

In 2007, global statistics[6] are summarized as 1003 total communications received (49% being joint communications), covering 2294 individuals (13% women), and communications were sent to 128 countries. Fifty-two percent of the Governments responded in 2007 (for all communications, including some from 2006). Regarding thematic issues addressed, the following chart was issued by the OHCHR[7]:

2.2 Confidential procedure

On 27 May 1970 the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) adopted the resolution 1503 (XLVIII), setting up a new confidential human rights complaint procedure before the Commission on Human Rights of the UN. Using this mechanism, groups or individuals could bring a complaint before the Commission relating to gross and reliably attested violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms.[8] Thirty years later, the procedure was amended on 16 June 2000 by ECOSOC resolution 2000/3 “to make it more efficient, to facilitate dialogue with the Governments concerned and to provide for a meaningful debate in the final stages of a complaint [...]”. Following the 2006 reform of the Commission –replaced by the Council on Human Rights– a new 1503 complaint procedure was established on 18 June 2007 to address consistent patterns of gross and reliably attested violations of all human rights and all fundamental freedoms occurring in any part of the world and under any circumstances. The 1503 procedure established in 1970 and reformed in 2000 served as a working basis to design the new mechanism, but was improved to ensure that the new complaint procedure would be “impartial, objective, efficient, victims-oriented and conducted in a timely manner”.

Commentators have criticized the 1503 procedure, pointing out its secrecy, confidentiality, slowness, complexity, and its political character, while others have underlined the advantages of such a procedure that offers an avenue, by nature universal (available to all victims), to spotlight human rights situations traditionally ignored. The new 1503 procedure is quite similar to the procedure established in 1970 and reformed in 2000 and is grounded on the same basic principles. However, procedural safeguards have been adopted in order to reduce the disadvantages of the old procedure that affected its effectiveness and credibility.

Two Working Groups – the Working Group on Communications (WGC) first and the Working Group on Situations (WGS) thereafter – are established to examine the communications before they can be transmitted to the HRC. Their work is confidential, based on consensus, and conducted in close cooperation with the State concerned. The main task of these groups is to examine the communications and to bring to the attention of the Council on consistent patterns of gross and reliably attested violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms. The decision of the Human Rights Council can be: to discontinue considering the situation; to keep the situation under review in requesting the State to provide future information or in appointing an independent and highly qualified expert to monitor the situation and report back; to discontinue reviewing the matter under the confidential procedure and to consider the same matter under a public procedure similar to the 1235 procedure; or to recommend the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to provide technical, capacity building assistance and advisory services to the country concerned.

The information concerning the use of the 1503 Procedure is, by its very nature, confidential, which renders the statistical and practical analysis almost impossible. The only information available would be the name of the countries concerned by a communication under the 1503 Procedure and the results of a procedure made public by decision of the HRC/Commission. Between 1970 and 2005, 98 States were subject of an examination under that Procedure, including 27 in Africa, 27 in Asia, 19 in Latin America, 18 in Eastern Europe, and seven Western States.[9] To get that result, supposedly several thousands of communications were lodged each year before the Commission.

2.3 Universal Periodic Review (UPR)[10]

The UN General Assembly resolution 60/251, establishing the HRC in 2006, introduced a major innovation when stating that the HRC shall

“[u]ndertake a universal periodic review, based on objective and reliable information, of the fulfilment by each State of its human rights obligations and commitments in a manner which ensures universality of coverage and equal treatment with respect to all States; the review shall be a cooperative mechanism, based on an interactive dialogue, with the full involvement of the country concerned and with consideration given to its capacity-building needs; [...]”[11]

On 18 June 2007, the HRC adopted a resolution establishing detailed procedure rules (periodicities, modalities, basis, outcomes, objectives etc.) during its fifth session[12]. The UPR will work on a 4-year cycle basis, during which all of the 192 UN member States will be examined under this procedure[13].

[1] Its first mandate was to elaborate international norms before submitting them to the General Assembly. The drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights constituted its first mission, in 1948. Its mandate was then extended, allowing it to take resolutions or reports, but also to deal with concrete situations of human rights violations. To this end, a Sub-Commission of 24 independent experts elected for 4 years. The Sub-Commission was suppressed with the 2006-2007 reforms. Finally, in the late 60’s, the ECOSOC took a resolution to allow the Commission to deal with complaints filed by individuals or NGOs about a consistent pattern of gross and reliably attested violations of human rights or fundamental freedoms, through public special procedures or a confidential one (the “1503 procedure”, created by ECOSOC resolution 1503, of 27 may 1970).

[2] Report of the Secretary-General of the UN, In larger freedom: towards development, security and human rights for all, 24 March 2005, p. 45:

“Yet the Commission’s capacity to perform its tasks has been increasingly undermined by its declining credibility and professionalism. In particular, States have sought membership of the Commission not to strengthen human rights but to protect themselves against criticism or to criticize others. As a result, a credibility deficit has developed, which casts a shadow on the reputation of the United Nations system as a whole.”

The composition of the Commission was of 53 States representatives, elected by the ECOSOC for 3 renewable years. Quite often States with highly negative outcomes regarding human rights were sitting in the Commission.

[3] UN General Assembly, Res. A/RES/60/251, 3 April 2006, para.7. For the actual composition of the HRC, please refer to website http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/membership.htm (visited on 13 March 2008), or to website http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/elections.htm for more precise results of the election.

[4] Ibid., para. 8.

[5] http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/chr/special/index.htm (visited on 13 March 2008).

[6] U.N. Special Procedures, Facts and Figures 2007, p. 17, online publication available at:

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/chr/special/docs/SP2007FactsFigures.pdf (visited on 13 March 2008). These figures are globally 10 to 20% inferior by comparison to the 2006 figures:

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/chr/special/docs/facts_figures_2006.pdf.

[7] U.N. Special Procedures, Facts and Figures 2007, ibid., p. 18.

[8] Although the reference to violations of human rights was made in resolution 1503, fundamental rights were only mentioned within ECOSOC res. 2000/3, U.N. Doc. E/RES/2000/3 (June 16, 2000).

[9] For more detailed figures regarding the 1503 and 1235 procedures, please refer to website:

http://www.ishr.ch/handbook/Annexes/CommProcs/1503outcms.pdf (visited on 13 March 2008).

[10] For detailed information on the subject, please refer to website:

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/upr/index.htm (visited on 13 March 2008).

[11] UN General Assembly, Res. A/RES/60/251, 3 April 2006, para. 5(e).

[12] Human Rights Council, Res. A/HRC/RES/5/1, 18 June 2007.

[13] To access the calendar regarding examination of States between 2008 and 2012, please refer to website:

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/upr/uprlist.pdf (visited on 13 March 2008).