On October 20 2010, the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Ms Navanethem Pillay, addressed the Third Committee for the third time since her appointment.

On October 20 2010, the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Ms Navanethem Pillay, addressed the Third Committee for the third time since her appointment. Unsurprisingly, during the interactive dialogue, some States referred to the presidential statement on the relationship between the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and the Council, which was adopted at the Council’s fifteenth session.(1) The High Commissioner steadfastly maintained that the statement, which relates to the presentation of the human rights strategic framework (Programme 19) to the Council, fully supports General Assembly Resolution 48/141 and does not compromise her Office’s independence. While the majority of States reiterated their support for the Office’s independence (Chile, Norway, UK and the EU), China reminded the High Commissioner that her strategic plan must now be submitted to the Council before the UN’s Committee for Programme and Coordination (CPC), and pressed the High Commissioner on how best to implement the presidental statement. Although recognizing that genuine constructive consultation and cooperation should be the hallmark of her Office’s relationship with the Council, Ms Pillay underscored that the presidential statement does not provide for formal oversight, which would threaten the role of her Office. She also pointedly noted that her reporting obligations are to the General Assembly and the Secretary General, not the Council.

The High Commissioner fielded further questions on the need for intergovernmental approval for UN Secretariat actions. Russia asked whether the Council should draw up standards for establishing new field offices, and both Russia and Cuba argued that the General Assembly had not approved the mandate for the UN Development Group’s (UNDG) new Human Rights Mechanism (HRM), which was recently established. However, most States expressed support for the impactful and important work of the field offices (Algeria, Australia, Chile, EU, Norway, UK, US) and the UN’s efforts to mainstream human rights into development (Costa Rica, EU, Switzerland). In responding to questions on the HRM, the High Commissioner reiterated remarks from her opening statement that it would help ensure cross-system coordination and coherence on human rights matters.  She noted that the UN was embarking on a new phase following the ‘Action 2 initiative’, and that the mechanism would provide practical support for Resident Coordinators, UN country teams and regional UNDG teams. Responding to Russia’s implication that she was overreaching her authority in establishing field presences, she reminded the Third Committee that field offices were established with the consent of the host country.

In her opening statement before the question and answer period, the High Commissioner detailed the impact of the OHCHR’s work in six key areas, which correspond to the strategic priorities set out in the  2010-2011 biennium. On the issue of poverty, she stressed the importance of implementing the MDG Summit Outcome Document according to human rights standards, (2) and highlighted her Office's General Assembly side event on this issue. (3) Regarding discrimination, she expressed concern about the plight of migrants, and noted a joint statement on the human rights of irregular migrants recently issued by the Global Migration Group, which OHCHR chairs.(4)

On violence and impunity, she emphasised that the Office’s investigations and its 56 field offices play a key role in the protection of civilians by monitoring and reporting abuses, and through their role in early warning processes. The High Commissioner also drew attention to OHCHR’s mapping report in the Democratic of Congo (DRC), which documented evidence of human rights violations in that country from 1993-2003, and noted that its main goal was to enable the DRC Government to identity appropriate transitional justice mechanisms. (5) Several States took up the issue of the protection of civilians during the  interactive dialogue, urging the integration of  human rights components into all peacekeeping missions (Algeria, Australia, Chile, UK), which the High Commissioner said she continued to advocate for.  Following a question posed by the UK on the role of OHCHR following the mass rapes in the DRC in August 2010, the High Commissioner referred to the recent report by her Office and the UN Stabilization Mission in the DRC (MONUSCO) on mass rapes carried out by armed groups in Nord-Kivu, DRC, and offered her Office’s support in bringing violators to justice. (6) She also highlighted that the OHCHR had convened a high-level panel on reparations to hear directly from victims of sexual violence in the DRC. A report will be released soon. (7)

In her statement, the High Commissioner also drew States’ attention to the review of the status of the Council by the General Assembly, and proposed that the reporting lines between the General Assembly and the Council be one subject of the review. She also reiterated her support for coordinated reviews in Geneva and New York, and the participation of civil society in the processes.

Though some States welcomed the High Commissioner’s views and perspectives on the Council review (Australia, US), others emphasised that it should be predominately State-run (Russia, Cuba). While recognising the intergovernmental process, the High Commissioner referred the Third Committee to the OHCHR non-paperon the review.(8) She also offered some constructive suggestions to improve the flow of information between the Council and the General Assembly to help ensure Council decisions with financial implications are implemented in a timely manner. One suggestion was that the General Assembly take up the relevant issues soon after they have occurred in the Council, rather than waiting until the end of the year to do so. An alternative or complementary idea could be to establish a contingency fund to provide money at required times.

The High Commissioner also responded to requests for her Office to play a greater role in addressing some issues, several of which have proved contentious in previous years. These included questions on: how the High Commissioner could better ensure the special procedures abide by the code of conduct (Malaysia and Pakistan), how the High Commissioner could better improve geographic diversity within the OHCHR (Pakistan and Cuba), and measures taken by the High Commissioner to address the ‘defaming’ of religions (Morocco, Malaysia, Qatar, Pakistan). The High Commissioner defended her efforts in all these areas, including pointing out that the OHCHR’s geographic diversity had greatly improved since 2006. Instead, it was the General Assembly itself that needed to ‘suspend’ some of the rules that it had created, which were restraining her from better addressing the imbalance. On the code of conduct, the High Commissioner reiterated her stance from previous interactive dialogues at the Council and the Third Committee that the special procedures can monitor themselves through their own internal mechanism and that States should take any alleged complaints to this Coordinating Committee. The High Commissioner stressed the links between freedom of expression and incitement to religious hatred, and highlighted the series of expert workshops that will be held in 2011.

Other issues raised during the interactive discussion included: the strengthening of human rights system (the need to increase the profile of the special procedures, and to promote the Dublin statement on the treaty bodies (EU); migrants (discrimination against migrants (Morocco, Iran, Benin), especially with respect to their religion and Islam (Morocco)); and the right to development, and activities envisioned to mark the 25^th anniversary of the Declaration (Morocco, China, UK, Malaysia, Brazil, Benin). Further details are available in the UN press release. (9)

1) A/HRC/PRST/15/2, available at http://bit.ly/bFqfDQ 

2) A/65/L.1

3) The OHCHR’s side event “Can the MDGs do without human rights?’, featured a panel with several special procedures, a UNDP official, an Amnesty International representative, and the Senegalese Ambassador. The High Commissioner delivered a statement.

4) The joint statement was issued on 30 September 2010 and is available at http://bit.ly/aNyJow

5) http://bit.ly/9zl0FT

6) The full report (in French only) is available at http://bit.ly/9cLT1Z

7) The panel reported recently on its preliminary findings that the needs of the victims are largely unmet, particularly in remote areas. For more information see http://bit.ly/bUH1PR

8) The OHCHR’s non-paper offers ideas on several governance issues related to the review of Council status in New York, including on the reporting line of the Council to the General Assembly/Third Committee, the Council’s reporting cycle vis-a-vis the General Assembly, and the format of the Council report.

9) http://bit.ly/b99h3X