On 19 October 2011, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Ms Navanethem Pillay, presented her report to the 66^th Session of the General Assembly Third Committee in New York.

On 19 October 2011, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Ms Navanethem Pillay, presented her report to the 66^th Session of the General Assembly Third Committee in New York. Though Ms Pillay’s statement was mainly a summary of the activities of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) in its priority areas, she specifically noted events over the last year in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA). She expressed hope that the Office could advance the recognition of human rights within these regions. During the interactive dialogue that followed the High Commissioner’s presentation, concerns about human right situations in the MENA region were also raised by Canada, EU, UK, US, and Australia.

In general States welcomed the High Commissioner’s work. Many WEOG and GRULAC expressed support for her work on human rights situations in countries, including through her field offices. However, Russia expressed concern over the High Commissioner’s approach to her mandate, and others, such as Cuba and China, urged her to carry out the Office’s work impartially and with respect for State sovereignty. The African group, supported by a few other States, also criticised what they viewed as the Office’s historical and current prioritisation of civil and political rights over economic and social rights. Other key areas discussed included: OHCHR transparency/cooperation with the Human Rights Council (Council); OHCHR funding, treaty body strengthening, geographical representation of OHCHR staff; and the issue of sexual orientation and gender identity.

Funding and resources available to the OHCHR was a key concern (Russia, US, Lichtenstein, Gabon and Kenya (on behalf of the African Group). Ms Pillay described the 3% of the total UN budget allocated to OHCHR as “scandalous” and that the financial management and planning “cannot continue at this pace.” OHCHR is continually tasked with additional activities, yet corresponding resources have not increased accordingly. Compounding this is the unprecedented number of fact-finding missions in recent years. Ms Pillay proposed a number of options including a review of mandate and resource requirements after each Council session, an establishment of a human rights contingency fund, and increased access to the extraordinary measures fund.

China and Egypt asserted the need for improved cooperation and transparency by OHCHR with the Council, particularly vis-a-vis the Office’s strategic management plan. Ms Pillay highlighted that the Council and the OHCHR should work closely together to maintain an ongoing constructive dialogue, and committed to meet informally with the Council on her strategic management plan. At the same time, she underscored that her reporting obligations are to the Secretary General and General Assembly. Many States expressed full support for the independence of the Office (Norway, UK, Australia, New Zealand).

On the High Commissioner’s role and approach to her mandate, Russia asserted that she should  not act as ‘international judge’ but rather promote dialogue and cooperation with States. Similar points were raised by the African Group, China, Egypt, Cuba, Syria, and Iran.  Several of these States also called on the OHCHR to focus more of its attention and budget on technical cooperation. Ms Pillay reassured the General Assembly that she acts within the framework of her mandate at all times. She pointed out that the media’s interest in the Office’s naming of violations could sometimes provide an imbalanced view of the cooperative spirit in which much of her work on country situations takes place. She provided examples in Cote D’Ivoire, Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen.  

Ms Pillay rejected the claim by some States (African Group, China, Egypt, South Africa, Gabon, and Cuba) that she favored civil and political rights, in fact, she prioritised economic and social rights.  She asked States to read her entire report to the General Assembly, which highlights her efforts in strategic advocacy, research and policy to advance the right to development and economic, social and cultural rights.

Kenya (on behalf of the African Group) and Gabon criticized the limited geographical diversity of OHCHR staff,  suggesting the imbalance has a negative impact on the OHCHR and undermines its work worldwide. The High Commissioner asserted that she continued to address this concern, noting that 50% of appointments in 2011 were from underrepresented regions. The General Assembly Resolution on Human Resources Management had also proved a useful tool in this area.

The High Commissioner’s work relating to sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) drew both support and ire from States.  Several States commended the UN’s work on sexual orientation (South Africa, Chile, Norway). The United Arab Emirates (UAE) (on behalf of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC)) argued that the issue was not connected to international human rights law and urged the High Commissioner not to reference “undefined notions” of sexual orientation in future reports. The African group, Iran, and Benin echoed this view. Ms Pillay urged States to focus on violations, which would help the international community begin addressing the problems related to discrimination and sexual orientation.

Concerns about human rights and migration were highlighted by Mexico, Chile, South Africa and Algeria. Ms Pillay expressed her Office’s commitment to the issue, and stated that the OHCHR regularly calls for ratification of the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families. She also noted OHCHR’s work on indicators of migrant’s economic, social and cultural rights.

Numerous States questioned the High Commissioner on her Office’s plans for treaty body strengthening (Ireland, Russia, Morocco, the EU, UK and Lichtenstein, New Zealand). Ms Pillay recalled that the treaty body system has doubled in size, indicating its importance and relevance. However the system was “in crisis’ as it was not funded sufficiently, and implored States to provide budget support.