For other versions of this document, see http://wikileaks.org/wiki/CRS-RL33608 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Order Code RL33608 The United Nations Human Rights Council: Issues for Congress Updated July 31, 2008 Luisa Blanchfield Analyst in International Relations Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division The United Nations Human Rights Council: Issues for Congress Summary On March 15, 2006, the U.N. General Assembly passed a resolution replacing the Commission on Human Rights with a new Human Rights Council (the Council). The U.N. Secretariat and some governments, including the United States, view the establishment of the Council as a key component of comprehensive U.N. reform. The Council was designed to be an improvement over the Commission, which was widely criticized for the composition of its membership when perceived human rights abusers were elected as members. The General Assembly resolution creating the Council, among other things, increases the number of meetings per year, reduces the number of Council seats from 53 to 47, and introduces a "universal periodic review" process to assess each Member State's fulfillment of its human rights obligations. One hundred seventy countries voted in favor of the resolution to create the Council. The United States was one of four countries to vote against the resolution, stating that the Council was no better than the Commission and that it lacked mechanisms for "maintaining credible membership." The Administration initially stated that it would fund and support the work of the Council. During the Council's first two years, however, the United States expressed concern with the Council's focus on Israel and lack of attention to other human rights situations. On April 8, 2008, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Zalmay Khalilzad, stated that the United States would withhold a portion of its contributions to the 2008 U.N. regular budget equivalent to the U.S. share of the Human Rights Council budget. On June 6, 2008, the Administration further announced that the United States would engage with the Council "only in matters of deep national interest." The United States has not run for a seat in any of the three Council elections and is currently a Council observer with no voting rights. Since its establishment, the Council has held eight regular sessions and seven special sessions. The regular sessions addressed a combination of specific human rights abuses and procedural and structural issues. Four of the seven special sessions addressed the human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and in Lebanon. Other Special Sessions have addressed the human rights situation in Darfur, Sudan (December 2006), the human rights situation in Myanmar (Burma) (October 2007), and the right to food and the world food crisis (May 2008). Congress maintains an ongoing interest in the credibility and effectiveness of the Council in the context of both human rights and broader U.N. reform. In Division J, the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriation Act, 2008, of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110- 161), for example, Congress prohibits U.S. contributions to support the Human Rights Council unless (1) the Secretary of State certifies to the Committees on Appropriations that funding the Council is "in the national interest of the United States" or (2) the United States is a member of the Council. Due to the nature of U.N. budget mechanisms, withholding Council funds would be a largely symbolic gesture and may have little or no effect on the Council's operational work. This report will be updated as events warrant. Contents Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Overview of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 The United States and U.N. Human Rights Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 The U.N. Human Rights Council and U.N. Reform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 The U.N. Human Rights Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Mandate and Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Structure and Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Status Within U.N. Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Membership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Elections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Rules of Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Universal Periodic Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Special Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Complaint Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Human Rights Council Advisory Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Overview of the Council's Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Criticism and Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Institution-Building Framework: Controversial Issues and the Secretary-General's Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Second Council Election . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Third Council Election . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Recent Council Sessions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Seventh Regular Session (March 2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Eighth Regular Session (June 2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Special Sessions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 U.S. Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 U.S. Response to the Establishment of the Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 U.S. Decisions Not to Run for a Council Seat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Congressional Actions Regarding Council Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 U.S. Withholding of Council Funding (April 2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 U.S. Decision to Disengage from the Council (June 2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Previous U.S. Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Future U.S. Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Response from Organizations and Other Governments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Human Rights Groups and Other Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Response to the Council's Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Other Governments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Congressional Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 U.S. Funding of the Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Impact of Observer Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 The Council and Alleged U.S. Human Rights Abuses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Council Report on Detainees in Guantanamo Bay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Inquiry of the Council's Special Rapporteur on Human Rights while Countering Terrorism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Inquiry of the Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Appendix A. Legislation in the 110th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Proposed Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Enacted or Passed Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Appendix B. Human Rights Council Membership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 List of Tables Table B-1. Human Rights Council Membership, by Regional Group . . . . . . . . . 32 The United Nations Human Rights Council: Issues for Congress Background Overview of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights1 The U.N. Human Rights Commission (the Commission) was the primary intergovernmental policymaking body for human rights issues before it was replaced by the U.N. Human Rights Council (the Council) in 2006. Created in 1946 as a subsidiary body of the U.N. Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC),2 the Commission's initial mandate was to establish international human rights standards and develop an international bill of rights. One of the Commission's notable successes was the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the U.N. General Assembly on December 10, 1948.3 During its tenure, the Commission played a key role in developing a comprehensive body of human rights laws and regulations.4 Over time, its work evolved to address specific human rights violations and complaints as well as broader human rights issues. It developed a system of special procedures to monitor, analyze and report on human rights violations. The procedures addressed country-specific human rights violations, as well as "thematic" crosscutting human rights abuses such as racial discrimination, religious intolerance, and denial of freedom of expression.5 In recent years, controversy developed over the human rights records of Commission members. Countries widely perceived as systematic abusers of human rights were elected as members. In 2001, Sudan, a country broadly criticized by 1 For further information on the background and evolution on the Commission on Human Rights, see CRS Report RS20110, The United Nations Commission on Human Rights: Background and Issues, by Vita Bite (archived; available from the author of this report). 2 ECOSOC is a principal organ of the United Nations that coordinates the economic and social work of the specialized U.N. agencies. It is comprised of 54 member governments elected to three-year terms by the U.N. General Assembly. 3 The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by General Assembly resolution 217 A (III), December 10, 1948, and can be viewed at [http://www.un.org/Overview/ rights.html]. 4 This includes the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which entered into force on March 23, 1976, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, which entered into force on January 3, 1976. The United States signed both treaties on October 5, 1977, and ratified the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on June 8, 1992. 5 Other examples of thematic mandates include the right to development; the right to education; the rights of migrants; and the right to food. CRS-2 governments and human rights groups for ethnic cleansing in its Darfur region, was elected. Sudan was reelected in 2004, prompting outrage from human rights organizations and causing the United States to walk out of the Commission chamber in protest.6 These instances significantly affected the Commission's credibility. Critics claimed that countries used their membership to deflect attention from their own human rights violations by questioning the records of others. Some members were accused of bloc voting and excessive procedural manipulation to prevent debate of their human rights abuses.7 In 2005, the collective impact of these controversies led U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan to propose the idea of a new and smaller Council to replace the Commission. On March 15, 2006, the U.N. General Assembly approved a resolution to dissolve the Commission and create the Council in its place. The Commission held its final meeting in Geneva, Switzerland, on June 16, 2006, where, among other actions, it transferred its reports and responsibilities to the new Council. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) is a department within the U.N. Secretariat headed by a High Commissioner for Human Rights, currently Navanethem Pillay of South Africa.8 Its mandate is to promote and protect human rights worldwide through international cooperation, and through the coordination and streamlining of human rights efforts within the U.N. system. The OHCHR provided general support to the Commission and will continue to do so for the Council, working specifically with Council experts to document human rights violations. The United States and U.N. Human Rights Efforts The United States is generally supportive of human rights mechanisms at the United Nations. It played a key role in creating the Commission on Human Rights in 1946, and was a member and active participant of the Commission until it lost its first election in 2001. It was restored to the Commission the following year by election. In 2005, the United States supported doubling the U.N. regular budget resources of OHCHR. This increased the U.N. regular budget for human rights activities from $64 million in 2004-2005 to $83 million in 2006-2007. Congress has also demonstrated continued support for U.N. human rights bodies, often using the mechanisms and special procedures of the Commission to call attention to the human 6 Press briefing by Mark Lagon, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs, U.S. Department of State, April 25, 2006. 7 "A New Chapter for Human Rights: A handbook on issues of transition from the Commission on Human Rights to the Human Rights Council," International Service for Human Rights and Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, June 2006. 8 Pillay's appointment was confirmed by consensus on July 28, 2008. Her term will begin on September 1, 2008, and she will succeed the previous High Commissioner, Louise Arbour of Canada. Pillay is the fifth U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights since the office was established 15 years ago. The OHCHR has just under 1,000 staff working in 50 countries with a budget of approximately $150 million. CRS-3 rights abuses of countries such as Cuba and China.9 In addition, Congress receives annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices from the Secretary of State as mandated by the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.10 The Secretary of State is required, among other things, to submit reports on countries that are members of the United Nations. There have been instances when both Congress and the executive branch have been critical of the Commission. In 1997, controversy emerged between the U.S. government and the Commission when the Commission appointed a Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary, and Arbitrary Executions to analyze how the death penalty is implemented in the United States.11 The Rapporteur reported that economic status, ethnicity, and racial discrimination were indicators for death penalty verdicts, reportedly prompting then-Senator Jesse Helms to declare the Special Rapporteur's mission "an absurd U.N. charade."12 In 2001, more controversy followed when the United States was not elected to the Commission and widely perceived human rights violators such as Pakistan, Sudan, and Uganda were elected. The Bush Administration and Congress were frustrated and disappointed by the election outcome. The House of Representatives reacted with a Foreign Relations Authorization Act amendment that linked payment of U.S. arrears to the United Nations with the United States regaining a seat on the Commission.13 The Administration, however, stated it would not link U.S. payment of U.N. dues and arrears to the outcome of the Commission elections.14 Given the controversy over the Commission, both Congress and the Administration supported the U.N. Secretary-General's 2005 proposal to disband the Commission and create a new Council. 9 Examples include H.Con.Res. 83, introduced on March 3, 2005, Urging the appropriate representative of the United States to the 61st session of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights to introduce a resolution calling on the Government of the People's Republic of China to end its human rights violations; and H.Res. 91, passed/agreed to in the House of Representatives on April 3, 2001, urging the President to make all necessary efforts to obtain passage during the 2001 meetings of the Commission on Human Rights of a resolution condemning the Cuban government for its human rights abuses. 10 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices are submitted to Congress in compliance with Sections 116(d) and 502B(b) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended. 11 Bacre Waly Ndiaye, Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, U.N. document E/CN.4/1998/68/Add.3, January 22, 1998. 12 Elizabeth Olson, "U.N. Report Criticizes U.S. for "Racist" Use of Death Penalty," The New York Times, April 7, 1998. 13 For more information on this congressional action, see CRS Report RS20110, The United Nations Commission on Human Rights: Background and Issues, by Vita Bite, p. 3-4 (archived; available from the author of this report). 14 Press Conference of the President, Office of the Press Secretary, The White House, May 11, 2001. CRS-4 The U.N. Human Rights Council and U.N. Reform The establishment of the U.N. Human Rights Council was part of a comprehensive U.N. reform effort by former U.N. Secretary-General Annan and member states. In March 2005, the Secretary-General outlined a plan for U.N. reform in his report, In Larger Freedom: Towards Development, Security, and Human Rights for All. He presented human rights, along with economic and social development and peace and security, as one of three "pillars" on which to base the work of the United Nations. In September 2005, heads of state and other high-level officials met for the World Summit at U.N. Headquarters in New York to address issues of development, security, human rights, and reform. The Summit Outcome document listed several mandates for "Strengthening the United Nations," including reform of the U.N. Security Council, management structure, and human rights bodies. In particular, the Outcome document mandated the creation of a new Council as part of broader U.N. reform. The United States also viewed the Council as a critical element of overall U.N. reform. The Bush Administration identified the establishment of a new Council as a key reform priority necessary to achieve a "strong, effective, and accountable organization."15 Congress also identified U.N. human rights reform as a significant component of overall U.N. reform. Recent proposed legislation has linked payment of U.N. assessed dues with the fulfillment of specific reforms, including those involving human rights.16 The U.N. Human Rights Council Mandate and Responsibilities On March 15, 2006, the U.N. General Assembly passed resolution A/RES/60/251, which established the Council and outlined its purpose and responsibilities.17 Under the resolution, the Council is responsible for "promoting universal respect for the protection of all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, without distinction of any kind and in a fair and equal manner." The Council will "address situations of violations of human rights, including gross and systematic violations, and make recommendations thereon." It will also promote and coordinate the mainstreaming of human rights within the U.N. system. In order to achieve the above goals, the Council will undertake a universal periodic review of each U.N. 15 "U.S. Priorities for a Stronger, More Effective United Nations," U.S. Department of State publication, June 17, 2005. Other Administration reform priorities included budget, management, and administrative reform, Democracy initiatives, and the creation of a comprehensive Convention on Terrorism. Further information on U.S. policy toward U.N. reform can be found at [http://www.un.int/usa/Issues/reform.html]. 16 See Appendix A for more information. 17 One hundred seventy parties voted in favor of the U.N. General Assembly resolution creating the Council; four voted against (Israel, Marshall Islands, Palau, and the United States), and three abstained (Belarus, Iran, and Venezuela). CRS-5 Member State's fulfillment of its human rights obligations and commitments. (See "Universal Period Review" section for more information.) The resolution also ensures adequate transition of responsibilities from the Commission on Human Rights to the new Council. Like the Commission, the Council will continue to collaborate with the OHCHR. It will work to maintain and improve the system of special mandates, expert advice, and complaint procedures instituted by the Commission. The Council shall also: ! promote human rights education, advisory services, technical assistance, and capacity building with relevant member states; ! serve as a forum for dialogue on thematic human rights issues and recommend opportunities for the development of international human rights law to the U.N. General Assembly; and ! promote the full implementation of human rights obligations by member states, and follow-up on human rights commitments from other U.N. conferences and summits.18 Structure and Composition On June 18, 2007, the Council adopted a resolution entitled "Institution- Building of the United Nations Human Rights Council" that addressed many crucial details related to the work of the Council, including its mechanisms, procedures, framework, and system of universal periodic review.19 Some aspects of the Council's work, however, will continue to be debated and determined by Council members. This section addresses current structural elements of the Council. Key differences between the Council and the Commission are noted where relevant. Status Within U.N. Framework. The Council is designated a subsidiary body of the General Assembly, whereas the Commission was a subsidiary body of ECOSOC. This change significantly enhances the standing of human rights within the U.N. framework. In its new capacity, the Council reports directly to the General Assembly's 192 members instead of through ECOSOC's 54 members. Former 18 The mandates and responsibilities are drawn from U.N. document, A/RES/60/251, March 15, 2006. 19 During its first year, the Council established four working groups (WGs) to address its working methods: (1) WG to Develop the Modalities of Universal Periodic Review; (2) WG on the Review of Mechanisms and Mandates on the Future System of Expert Advice; (3) WG on the Review of Mechanisms and Mandates and Special Procedures; and (4) WG on the Agenda, Annual Program of Work, Working Methods, and Rules of Procedures. WG members met throughout the year to negotiate and recommend Council procedures and mechanisms. Based on the recommendations, then-Council President Luis Alfonso de Alba proposed a draft institution-building text that was subsequently negotiated and adopted by Council members in Human Rights Council resolution 5/1 (June 18, 2007). See U.N. document, A/HRC/5/L.11, Report to the General Assembly on the Fifth Session of the Human Rights Council, June 18, 2007. CRS-6 Secretary-General Annan stated that eventually he would like to see the Council become a principal organ of the United Nations in the same vein as the Security Council or Secretariat.20 Membership. The Council is composed of 47 members apportioned by geographic region as follows: 13 from African states; 13 from Asian states; six from Eastern Europe states; eight from Latin America and the Caribbean states; and seven from Western European and other states. Members are elected for a period of three years and may not hold a Council seat for more than two consecutive terms. If a Council member commits "gross and systematic violations of human rights," the General Assembly may suspend membership with a two-thirds vote of members present. For comparison, the Commission was composed of 53 member states elected by members of the ECOSOC. Countries served three year terms with no term limits. Like the Council, the Commission created a formula to ensure equitable distribution of seats by region.21 Elections. All U.N. member states are eligible to run for election to the Council. Countries are elected through secret ballot by the General Assembly with an absolute majority (97 out of 192 votes). When voting, the resolution instructs countries to consider "the contribution of candidates to the promotion and protection of human rights and their voluntary pledges and commitments." A country submitting its name for election must affirm its commitment to human rights with a written pledge. A key difference between the Council and the Commission is the direct election of Council members by the U.N. General Assembly. Under the Commission, candidates were first nominated by their regional groups and then the nominees were submitted for election by members of ECOSOC. Regional groups often sent the same number of nominees to the election as there were seats available. This forced some member states to cast votes for countries with questionable human rights records in order to fill all regional group seats. The next election will be held in May or June of 2009, and 18 of the 47 Council seats will be open. (See Appendix B for a list of current members grouped by region and duration of membership.) Structure. The Council holds an organizational meeting at the beginning of each Council year. At the meeting, members elect a president from among Bureau members for a one-year term. The president presides over the election of four vice- presidents representing other regional groups in the Council.22 The president and vice-presidents form the Council Bureau, which is responsible for all procedural and organizational matters related to the Council. The current president is Ambassador 20 "`The Eyes of the World Are Upon You,' Secretary-General says in address to first meeting of Human Rights Council," U.N. Press Release, June 19, 2006. 21 Regional distribution of seats on the Commission on Human Rights was as follows: 15 members from African states; 12 from Asian states; five from Eastern European states; 11 from Latin America and Caribbean states; and 10 from Western Europe and other states. 22 Current Vice-Presidents are Elchin Amirbayov of Azerbaijan, Erlinda F. Basilio of the Philippines, Alberto J. Dumont of Argentina, and Marius Grinius of Canada. Their term will end on June 18, 2009. CRS-7 Martin Ihoeghian Uhomoibhi of Nigeria. Under the Commission, the role of president was held by a chairperson. Meetings. The Council is headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, and meets for three or more sessions per year for ten weeks or more, including a high-level session. It can hold special sessions at the request of any Council member with the support of one-third of the Council membership. By contrast, the Commission on Human rights met in Geneva once a year for approximately six weeks, and since 1990 special sessions were held on request.23 Reporting. The Council submits annual reports directly to the General Assembly. At the end of its first five years, the Council is also required to review and report to the General Assembly on its "work and functioning."24 The Commission submitted reports primarily to ECOSOC, a limited membership body, which reported Commission activities to the General Assembly. Rules of Procedure. The Council follows the rules of procedure created for committees of the General Assembly.25 Procedures that relate to the participation of observer states, international organizations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), specialized agencies, and human rights institutions fall under the practices that were observed by the Commission.26 These rules encourage consultation and interaction at Council sessions among Council members, observing U.N. member states, NGOs, and other relevant organizations. Countries that are not Council members do not have voting rights. Universal Periodic Review. All Council members and observer states are required to undergo a universal periodic review (UPR) that examines a state's fulfillment of its human rights obligations and commitments. The review is an intergovernmental process that facilitates an interactive dialogue between the working group and the country under review. It is conducted by a UPR working group composed of the 47 Council members and chaired by the Council President. The first UPR cycle lasts four years, with Council members evaluating 48 states per year during three two-week sessions (six weeks total). Observer states may attend and speak at the working group, and relevant stakeholders (such as NGOs) may also attend the meetings. All Council members will undergo a review during the term of 23 Examples of Special Sessions under the Commission included Situation of human rights in Rwanda (1994); Situation in East Timor (1999); and "Grave and massive violations" of the human rights of the Palestinian people by Israel (2000). 24 The first annual report of the Human Rights Council was considered by the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) on November 10, 2006, and submitted to the 61st General Assembly for consideration. 25 General Assembly Rules of Procedure can be viewed at [http://www.un.org/ga/60/ga _rules.html]. 26 The Commission on Human Rights followed ECOSOC rules of procedure. CRS-8 their membership, and initial members (those with one- and two-year terms) will be reviewed first.27 UPR is based on the principles of the U.N. Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and human rights instruments to which the state under review is party. Voluntary pledges by states are also taken into account, as is input from the U.N. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and relevant stakeholders, such as NGOs and national human rights institutions. During the review cycles, which began in April 2008, the UPR working group makes initial recommendations, with subsequent reviews focusing on the implementation of recommendations from the previous review. The full Council also addresses any cases of consistent non- cooperation with the review. After the first four-year UPR cycle is completed, the Council will review the process to identify best practices and lessons learned. In April and May 2008, the UPR working group completed its first and second review sessions. The 16 countries scheduled for review in the third session in December 2008 are Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cape Verde, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Colombia, Bahamas, Barbados, Israel, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Montenegro, and Serbia.28 Special Procedures. The Council, like the previous Commission, maintains a system of special procedures that includes country and thematic mandates. Country mandates, which last for one year and can be renewed, allow for special rapporteurs to examine and advise on human rights situations in specific countries. Thematic mandates, which last for three years and can also be renewed, allow special rapporteurs to analyze major human rights phenomena globally.29 Similar to the Commission, the special rapporteurs serve in an independent, personal capacity and conduct in-depth research and site visits pertaining to their issue area or country. They can be nominated by U.N. member states, regional groups within the U.N. human rights system, international organizations, NGOs, or individuals. A newly established "consultative group" nominates rapporteurs for country and thematic mandates. Based on the consultative group's input, the Council president submits a list of possible candidates to Council members, who then consider each appointment.30 Complaint Procedure. The Council maintains a complaint procedure that allows individuals and groups to report human rights abuses in a confidential setting. The goal of the procedure is to objectively and efficiently facilitate dialogue and 27 More information on UPR is available at [http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/ UPR/Pages/UPRmain.aspx]. 28 A full UPR schedule is available at [http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/UPR/ Documents/uprlist.pdf]. 29 For more information on Council special procedures, see [http://www2.ohchr.org/ english/bodies/chr/special/index.htm]. 30 On June 18, 2007, the Council adopted a new Code of Conduct for special procedure mandate holders. See Human Rights Council resolution 5/1, in U.N. document, A/HRC/5/L.11, Report to the General Assembly on the Fifth Session of the Human Rights Council, June 18, 2007, pp. 45-55. CRS-9 cooperation among the accused state, Council members, and the complainant(s). A working group on Communications and a working group on Situations evaluate the complaints and bring them to the attention of the Council.31 The groups hold two five-day meetings per year to consider complaints and replies from concerned states. The full Council determines whether to take action on the complaints based on recommendations from the working groups. The Council's complaint procedure is very similar to the complaint procedure under the Commission on Human Rights, which also allowed for confidential reporting of human rights abuses. Human Rights Council Advisory Committee. The Advisory Committee replaces the Council's previous Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights. Similar to the Sub-Commission, the Advisory Committee is a subsidiary body of the Council and functions as a "think-tank" for Council members. The committee is composed of 18 experts nominated or endorsed by U.N. member states and elected by Council members through a secret ballot. Upon the Council's request, the Committee provides research-based advice that focuses on thematic human rights issues. The Committee meets twice a year for a maximum of 10 days, and can schedule meetings on an ad hoc basis with approval from Council members.32 The previous Sub-Commission came under criticism for duplicating the work of the Council and disregarding the Council's guidance and direction. The Sub-Commission consisted of 26 independent experts elected for four-year terms, and held an annual four-week session in Geneva.33 Overview of the Council's Work Since it was established in March 2006, the Council has held eight regular sessions and seven special sessions. The regular sessions dealt with a mixture of procedural and substantive issues, with a focus on improving working methods of the Council. The special sessions included four sessions on human rights violations in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and in Lebanon, one session addressing the human rights situation in Darfur, Sudan, one session addressing human rights in Myanmar (Burma), and one session on the right to food and the world food crisis. Criticism and Support. Since its establishment, the Council has faced considerable criticism from governments, NGOs, and other observers: ! Focus on Specific Countries/Bloc Voting -- The Council's focus on Israel during its regular and special sessions alarmed many countries and human rights organizations. After the first elections, 31 For more information on the newly-established complaint procedures, see U.N. document, A/HRC/5/L.11, Report to the General Assembly on the Fifth Session of the Human Rights Council, June 18, 2007, p. 19-24. 32 For more information on the Advisory Committee, see U.N. document, A/HRC/5/L.11, Report to the General Assembly on the Fifth Session of the Human Rights Council, June 18, 2007, p. 15-18. The first meeting of the Committee is scheduled from August 4 to 15 in Geneva, Switzerland. 33 Additional information on the Sub-Commission for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights can be found at [http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/subcom/index.htm]. CRS-10 the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC)34 held 17 seats on the Council -- accounting for about one-third of the votes needed to call a special session.35 Some observers believe that consequently the Council held more special sessions on Israel than on any other country. ! Role of Regional Groups in Council Elections -- Some Council members and observers are worried that the process of elections by regional group does not allow for competition among member states running for Council seats. In the May 2007 elections, for example, three out of five regional groups nominated the same number of countries as there were seats available. This limited the number of choices and guaranteed the election of nominated member states regardless of their human rights records. ! Leadership from Democratic Countries -- Some have noted that the Council lacks leadership, particularly from democracies and countries with positive human rights records.36 Some observers have speculated that pro-democracy Council members are not pushing their initiatives as they have in the past because they need support from other Council members, particularly the Non-Aligned Movement, in negotiations on Council structure and mechanisms.37 Alternately, some observers maintain that the Council can still change its current course and improve. They emphasize that the Council has yet to fully implement some of the mechanisms that differentiate it from the Commission -- most notably the universal periodic review process. Council supporters also maintain that the composition of Council membership is a significant improvement over the composition of Commission membership. They emphasize that the most egregious human rights abusers did not attempt to run in Council elections because of the new criteria. Some supporters also point out that widely perceived human rights violators that announced their candidacy, such as Belarus, failed to win a seat in the last election. Finally, proponents highlight the Council's recent adoption of resolutions on the human rights situation in Sudan and Myanmar (Burma) as examples of the Council's continued improvement. 34 The OIC is an intergovernmental group composed of 57 states with a goal of combining their efforts and resources to "speak with one voice to safeguard the interest and ensure the progress and well-being of... Muslims in the world over." For more information, see [http://www.oic-oci.org/]. 35 After the second elections, OIC members occupied 15 of 47 Council seats. This includes a majority in both the African and Asian regional groups, which together account for over half of the Council membership. After the third election, OIC members accounted for 16 of 47 Council seats. 36 "Human Rights Hoax," Wall Street Journal, June 21, 2007. 37 "Dawn of a New Era? Assessment of the U.N. Human Rights Council and its Year of Reform," U.N. Watch, May 7, 2007, p. 7. CRS-11 Institution-Building Framework: Controversial Issues and the Secretary-General's Response. In the institution-building text adopted on June 18, 2007, Council members identified the "Human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories," as a permanent part of the Council's agenda and framework for its future program of work. The Council also established a mechanism for confidential complaint procedures, as well as Council rules of procedure. In addition, the text stated the need for "proposers of a country resolution to secure the broadest possible support for their initiatives (preferably 15 members), before action is taken."38 Council members also terminated the mandates of the special rapporteur for Belarus and Cuba.39 Many U.N. member states and Council observers objected to the Council singling out human rights violations by Israel while terminating the Council's country mandates of widely perceived human rights abusers.40 At the conclusion of the Council's fifth regular session in Geneva in June 2007, a U.N. spokesperson noted Secretary-General Ban's "disappointment" with the Council's decision to "single out only one specific regional item, given the range and scope of allegations of human rights violations throughout the world."41 In response to the Council's decision to terminate the country mandates of Cuba and Belarus, Ban released a statement that emphasized "the need to consider all situations of possible human rights violations equally," and noted that "not having a Special Rapporteur assigned to a particular country does not absolve that country from its obligations under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and every other human rights treaty."42 Ban, however, welcomed and supported the new procedures for universal periodic review, calling them "strong and meaningful," and noting that they 38 U.N. document A/HRC/5/L.11, p. 29. This provision was a point of contention among Council members. During negotiations, China maintained that a two-thirds majority should be required to take action on country-specific resolutions -- a position that EU countries did not accept. Multiple credible sources confirm that the European Union (EU) agreed to terminate the Council's Cuba and Belarus mandates if China would agree to the language in the adopted text. 39 See footnote 37. Council members maintained country mandates for countries such as Burma, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Haiti, North Korea, Somalia, and Sudan. The mandates for Cuba and Belarus were not included in the final list of renewed mandates in Appendix I of the institution-building text. (U.N. document A/HRC/5/L.11, June 18, 2007, p. 38). 40 For a synthesis of U.N. member state views, see U.N. press release, "Human Rights Council Hears Praise and Criticism About Adopted Text on Institution Building of Council," June 19, 2007. See also, "Conclusion of the United Nations Human Rights Council's Institution Building," Amnesty International External Document, No. 115, June 20, 2007. 41 Daily Press Briefing by the Office of the Spokesperson for the Secretary-General, June 21, 2007, available at [http://www.un.org/News/briefings/docs/2007/db070621.doc.htm]. 42 U.N. press release, "Secretary-General Urges Human Rights Council to Take Responsibilities Seriously, Stresses Importance of Considering All Violations Equally," June 20, 2007, available at [http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2007/sgsm11053.doc.htm]. CRS-12 "send a clear message that all countries will have their human rights record and performance examined at regular intervals."43 Second Council Election. On May 17, 2007, the General Assembly elected 14 new Council members in the second Council elections. Reelected members include India, Indonesia, Netherlands, Philippines, and South Africa. Newly elected members are Angola, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bolivia, Egypt, Italy, Madagascar, Nicaragua, Qatar, and Slovenia. India and Indonesia received the highest number of votes, earning 185 and 182 votes, respectively. With two exceptions (the Eastern European group and Western European and Others group), regional groups nominated the same number of countries as there were seats available.44 In the weeks leading up to the election, the Eastern European group nominated only two states, Belarus and Slovenia, for two available seats. Many Council members and observers were concerned that Belarus, a widely perceived human rights abuser, would be elected to the Council. Canada, the United Kingdom, the United States, and others reportedly mounted a successful lobbying effort to encourage the last-minute candidacy and election of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Third Council Election. The third Human Rights Council elections were held on May 21, 2008. Fifteen countries were elected, three of which will be serving on the Council for the first time. Re-elected members include Argentina, Bahrain, Brazil, France, Gabon, Ghana, Japan, Pakistan, Republic of Korea, Ukraine, United Kingdom, and Zambia. The new Council members are Burkina Faso, Chile , and Slovakia.45 Recent Council Sessions Since its establishment, the Human Rights Council has held eight regular sessions.46 Outcomes from the most recent sessions are discussed below. Seventh Regular Session (March 2008). At its seventh regular session held in Geneva from March 3 to 28, 2008, the Human Rights Council extended the mandates of 13 Independent Experts and Special Rapporteurs for three years -- including those on the effects of foreign debt; human rights and international solidarity; minority issues; human rights defenders; the sale of children; child 43 U.N. press release, SG/SM/11053, HRC/8, June 20, 2007. 44 Member States that announced their candidacies in the second election include Angola, Egypt, Madagascar, and South Africa from the African group (four seats available); India, Indonesia, Philippines, and Qatar in the Asian group (four seats available); Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Slovenia in the Eastern European group (two seats available); Bolivia and Nicaragua in the Latin American and Caribbean group (two seats available); and Denmark, Italy and the Netherlands in the Western European and Other group (two seats available). 45 For more information on the third election, see [http://www.un.org/ga/62/elections/ hrc_elections.shtml]. 46 A synopsis of the first four Human Rights Council regular sessions is available from the author of this report. CRS-13 prostitution and child pornography; and violence against women. It also extended for one year the mandates of the Special Rapporteurs for the situation of human rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Myanmar (Burma), and Somalia, and renewed the mandates of the working groups on the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights, and enforced and involuntary disappearances. The Council also established the mandate of an Independent Expert on the issues of human rights obligations related to access of safe drinking water and sanitation. Council members did not renew the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The Council adopted 36 resolutions on a variety of issues, including the role of good governance in the promotion and protection of human rights; human rights of persons with disabilities; the right to food; human rights and extreme poverty; protection of human rights while countering terrorism; and composition of the staff of the Office of the U.N. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. The Council adopted resolutions on human rights situations requiring the Council's attention -- including the situations in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Sudan, Myanmar (Burma).47 Council members also adopted four resolutions involving Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory that address (1) human rights violations emanating from Israeli military attacks and incursions in the Occupied Palestinian Territory; (2) the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination; (3) Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory; and (4) human rights in the occupied Syrian Golan.48 Eighth Regular Session (June 2008). At the Council's eighth regular session, held from June 2 to 18, 2008, members adopted 14 resolutions addressing a range of issues.49 The resolutions extended the mandates of several Special Rapporteurs for three years, including the Rapporteurs on extrajudicial summary or arbitrary executions; right to education; independence of judges and lawyers; torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment; and trafficking in persons. Members also adopted the outcomes of the Universal Periodic Review process for 32 countries, and engaged in a number of general debates -- including a discussion of the human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Palestinian territories. In addition, Council members adopted a resolution on the elimination of discrimination against persons affected by leprosy and their family members. 47 For a synopsis of the resolutions, see U.N. press release, "Human Rights Council Adopts 36 Resolutions and Extends Mandates of 13 Special Procedures at Seventh Regular Session," March 28, 2008. 48 For a synopsis of the resolutions, see U.N. press release, "Human Rights Council Adopts 36 Resolutions and Extends Mandates of 13 Special Procedures at Seventh Regular Session," March 28, 2008. More information on the seventh regular session is available at [http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/7session/index.htm]. 49 Council members also agreed to presidential statements on the Universal Periodic Review Process and the extension of Special Procedure mandate holders. The texts are available at [http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/sdpage_e.aspx?b=10&se=77&t=13]. CRS-14 Council members also adopted a resolution on the human rights situation in Myanmar (Burma).50 The resolution strongly urged the Myanmar government to desist from politically related arrests and immediately release all political prisoners. It also called on the government to stop the recruitment of child soldiers, and for full, transparent, and independent investigations into reports of human rights violations. The Council's ninth regular session will be held from September 6 to 26, 2008, in Geneva.51 Special Sessions. Since its establishment, the Council has held seven special sessions. First Special Session (July 2006). The first special session on the Human Rights Situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories was held on July 5, 2006 in Geneva. The Council adopted a resolution demanding that Israel end its military operations in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and, among other things, "refrain from imposing collective punishment on Palestinian civilians."52 The resolution was adopted with a vote of 29 in favor, 11 opposed, and five abstentions. In the resolution, the Council agreed to send a group of experts and special rapporteurs to the Palestinian Territories to examine potential Israeli human rights abuses.53 To date, the special rapporteurs have not been dispatched.54 Second Special Session (August 2006). On August 10 and 11, 2006, the Council held a second special session on the Grave Situation of Human Rights in Lebanon Caused by Israeli Military Operations. At the session, the Council adopted a resolution condemning Israeli military operations in Lebanon, particularly the Israeli air strikes in Qana on July 30, 2006. The resolution ordered the dispatch of a high-level commission of human rights law experts to investigate "the systematic targeting and killings of civilians by Israel," and examine "the types of weapons used," and the "extent and deadly impact" of the attacks, and report to the Council.55 The resolution was adopted with a vote of 27 in favor, 11 opposed, and 8 abstentions. Some member states abstained or voted against the resolution because they believed 50 U.N. document, A/HRC/RES/8/14, June 18, 2008, available at [http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/E/HRC/resolutions/A_HRC_RES_8_14.pdf]. 51 More information on the eight regular session is available at [http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/8session/resolutions.htm]. 52 U.N. document, A/HRC/S-1/L.1/Rev.1, July 18, 2006. 53 More information on the first special session can be found at [http://www.ohchr.org/ english/bodies/hrcouncil/specialsession/index.htm]. 54 At its third regular session, held in Geneva from November 19 to December 8, 2006, the Council adopted text regretting that the special rapporteurs had not yet been sent to the Occupied Territory, and calling for the "speedy implementation" of their mission. 55 U.N. document, A/HRC/S-2/2, August 17, 2006, p. 3-4. The high-level Commission issued its report on November 23, 2006. A copy of the Commission of Inquiry on Lebanon's report is available at [http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/specialsession/ A.HRC.3.2.pdf]. CRS-15 it did not adequately address possible human right violations by Hezbollah against Israel.56 Third Special Session (November 2006). The Council held a third special session on Israeli Military Incursions in the Occupied Palestinian Territories on November 15, 2006. Council members adopted a resolution expressing "shock and horror" regarding the Israeli killings of Palestinian civilians in Beit Hanoun, and expressed alarm over the "gross and systematic violations of human rights of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory."57 In addition, the Council decided to send a high-level fact-finding mission to Beit Hanoun to examine the condition of the victims and make recommendations on how to protect Palestinian civilians from Israeli attacks. Fourth Special Session (December 2006). At the fourth special session, the Council broke its pattern of concentrating on Israeli human rights violations and addressed the human rights situation in Darfur, Sudan.58 From December 12 to 13, 2006, the Council discussed the humanitarian crisis in Darfur and adopted by consensus a decision that (1) expressed the Council's concern for the seriousness of the human rights situation; (2) urged the government of Sudan to cooperate with the Human Rights Council and the OHCHR; and (3) decided to dispatch a high-level mission to examine the human rights situation in Darfur and report to the Council.59 The text did not condemn Sudan for its human rights abuses, and some member states felt the language should have been stronger. However, most member states were relatively satisfied that the Council was able to come to consensus given the importance and urgency of the issue.60 Fifth Special Session (October 2007).61 The Council held its fifth special session on the human rights situation in Myanmar (Burma) on October 2, 2007. Council members adopted a resolution by consensus that "strongly deplores the continued violent repression of peaceful demonstrations in Myanmar."62 The resolution also urges the government to exercise restraint and to desist from violence against peaceful protestors. Moreover, Council members urged the Myanmar 56 Drawn from country statements in U.N. Press Release, "Council Strongly Condemns Grave Israeli Violations of Human Rights in Lebanon," August 11, 2006. 57 U.N. document, A/HRC/S-3/L.1, November 14, 2006. 58 Further information on the fourth special session, including press releases and country statements, is available at [http://www.ohchr.org/english/press/hrc/index.htm]. 59 U.N. document, Human Rights Council. Decision S-4/101, December 13, 2006 [advanced edited version]. 60 Due to visa problems, the high-level panel did not visit Sudan as part of its research -- though the panel did travel to neighboring Chad to interview Sudanese refugees. For more information, see U.N. News Service article, "Lacking Visas, U.N. Mission to Darfur to Carry Out Work Without Visit to Sudan," February 14, 2007. 61 For more information on the Council's fifth special session, see [http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/specialsession/5/index.htm]. 62 U.N. document, A/HRC/S-5/2, November 28, 2007, p. 3. CRS-16 government to immediately release those who were arrested for peaceful protests, as well as all political prisoners, including Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.63 In the resolution, Council members also requested that the Council's Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in Myanmar monitor and report on the current situation at the Council's Sixth regular session.64 Sixth Special Session. The Council held its sixth special session on "violations stemming from Israeli Incursions in Occupied Palestinian Territory"on January 24, 2008. Council members adopted a resolution that (1) expresses grave concern with Israel's repeated military attacks on the Occupied Territory, including the Gaza Strip; (2) calls for urgent international action to end the grave violations; (3) calls on Israel to lift its siege on the Gaza Strip and reopen border crossings; and (4) requests the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights to report to the Council on the implementation of the resolution at the next session.65 Seventh Special Session (May 2008). On May 22, 2008, the Council held its seventh special session on the"negative impact on the realization of the right to food of the worsening of the world food crisis, caused inter alia by the soaring food prices."66 Council members adopted a resolution on the issue, which expressed grave concern at the worsening of the global food crisis, and called upon states and other relevant stakeholders to take all necessary measures to ensure the realization of the right to food as an essential human rights objective.67 U.S. Policy During the Council's first two years, the Administration was generally disappointed with the work of the Council. A main point of concern was the Council's focus on Israeli human rights violations while it failed to address human rights abuses in other parts of the world. The Administration maintained that the legitimacy of the Council would be undermined if some Council members continue to push such "imbalanced" views. It stated it does not object to discussing potential Israeli human rights abuses as long as violations by other countries are also 63 For information on the situation in Myanmar, see CRS Report RL33479, Burma-U.S. Relations, by Larry A. Niksch. 64 More information on the work of the Special Rapporteur on Myanmar is available at [http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/7/a/mmya.htm]. 65 See U.N. Human Rights Council resolution S-/1, January 28, 2008. The resolution was adopted by a roll-call vote of 30 in favor, one against, and 15 abstentions. Canada was the only country to vote against the resolution. More information on the special session is available at [http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/specialsession/6/index.htm]. 66 The special session was called by Cuba, on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, along with Egypt on behalf of the Africa group. More information on the session is available at [http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/specialsession/7/index.htm]. 67 See U.N. Human Rights Council resolution S-7/1, May 22, 2008, available at [http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/specialsession/7thSpecial_Session _Resolution.pdf]. CRS-17 discussed.68 In the case of the third special session held on Israeli human rights abuses in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, the United States maintained that the Council "should not address particular military actions taken during a period of armed conflict that are clearly governed by the law of war."69 The United States said it was "unfortunate" that the Council used its limited resources to focus on issues not clearly within its mandate while other human rights concerns were not addressed.70 On April 8, 2008, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Zalmay Khalilzad, stated that the United States would withhold a portion of its contributions to the 2008 U.N. regular budget equivalent to the U.S. share of the Human Rights Council budget.71 On June 6, 2008, a State Department official announced that the United States would engage with the Human Rights Council only when there was an issue of "deep national interest."72 U.S. Response to the Establishment of the Council Overall, the United States supports the mission of the Council.73 However, the United States opposed the final Council structure, and was one of four countries to vote against the U.N. General Assembly resolution creating the Council. In a statement made after the vote, then-U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton called the U.S. position a "matter of principle," and said the United States could not support the resolution because it lacked "stronger mechanisms for maintaining credible membership." He stated that the United States did not have confidence that the new Council would be better than its predecessor, but at the same time indicated the United States would work with other member states to ensure the Council is strong and operates as effectively and efficiently as possible.74 During negotiations for the resolution creating the Council, the United States supported several measures it believed would make it more difficult for human rights abusers to be elected. It agreed with Secretary-General Annan's proposal that a 68 U.S. Statement on the Third Special Session of the Human Rights Council, Tom Casey, Deputy Spokesman, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC, November 15, 2006. 69 Statement of the United States at the Third Special Session of the U.N. Human Rights Council, November 15, 2006. 70 Ibid. 71 U.S. Mission to the United Nations press release #075(08), "Statement by Zalmay Khalilzad on the Durban II Conference and the Human Rights Council," April 8, 2008, available at [http://www.usunnewyork.usmission.gov/press_releases/20080408_075.html]. 72 Daily Press Briefing, Sean McCormack, Spokesperson, U.S. Department of State, June 6, 2008, available at [http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpd/2008/jun/105716.htm]. See "Congressional Actions Regarding Council Funding," and "U.S. Withholding of Council Funding (April2008)" sections for more information on these U.S. actions. 73 Remarks on the Human Rights Council Elections by Kristen Silverberg, Assistant Secretary for International Organization Affairs, U.S. Department of State, May 17, 2006. 74 Drawn from Ambassador Bolton's statement in the U.N. provisional verbatim record. U.N. document, A/60/PV.72, March 15, 2006, p. 6. CRS-18 two-thirds vote should be required in the General Assembly for election instead of an absolute majority, noting that election by an absolute majority would make it easier for a country to be elected to the Council than to be removed. The United States also supported "exclusionary criteria" for Council membership, arguing that member states under Security Council sanctions for human rights abuses or acts of terrorism should not be eligible to run for a Council seat. Additionally, the United States felt that there should be fewer than 47 seats to further reduce the possibility that human rights abusers were elected. It was disappointed with the reduction of seats in the Western European and Others regional group (to which the United States belongs) from ten to seven. Despite these concerns, the United States expressed support for several components of the Council. It agreed with the Council's enhanced status in the U.N. system as a subsidiary body to the General Assembly. The United States also supported the increase in number of Council meetings per year, saying it could give the Council the flexibility to respond immediately to pressing human rights issues. U.S. Decisions Not to Run for a Council Seat On April 6, 2006, the United States announced that it would not run for a Council seat in the first election. A State Department spokesperson stated, "There are strong candidates in our regional group, with long records of support for human rights, that voted in favor of the resolution creating the Council. They should have the opportunity to run."75 State Department officials admitted that if the United States ran, losing the election was a possibility. They determined that the United States would most likely be elected with a good lobbying effort (though it was not guaranteed). Officials said that instead of focusing U.S. political capital on getting elected, the United States could more effectively leverage its resources by campaigning against candidates with poor human rights records and in favor of those with a demonstrated commitment to human rights.76 When the election results were announced, the United States stated that while several countries elected to the Council lacked "a genuine commitment to the protection and promotion of human rights,"77 it was pleased that countries like Iran and Venezuela were not elected.78 On March 6, 2007, the Administration announced that the United States would not run for a Council seat in the May 2007 elections. A State Department 75 Press Statement by Sean McCormack, Spokesman, U.S. Department of State, April 6, 2006. 76 Drawn from a press briefing by Mark Lagon, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs, U.S. Department of State, April 25, 2006. 77 The introduction to the 2005 State Department Country Reports on Human Rights Practices listed several countries elected to the Council that were cited for their poor human right records. They included Azerbaijan, Cuba, China, Ecuador, Pakistan, and Russia. Other Council members such as Saudi Arabia and Cameroon were also cited for their poor human rights records. Country Reports can be viewed at [http://www.state.gov/g/drl/hr/]. 78 Press Statement by Sean McCormack, Spokesperson, U.S. Department of State, May 11, 2006. CRS-19 spokesperson stated that the Council had "not proved itself to be a credible body," and had exhibited a "nearly singular focus on Israel," while not adequately addressing human rights situations in countries such as Cuba, Burma, or North Korea.79 The Administration emphasized that it will continue to promote human rights globally, and will remain actively engaged in human rights issues, not only within the U.N. system but outside as well. The United States did not run for a seat in the third Council elections, held in May 2008. Congressional response to the Administration's decision not to run in the Council elections was mixed. Representative Tom Lantos, Chairperson of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, reportedly stated that the decision not to run in the first Council election was "a major retrenchment in America's long struggle to advance the cause of human rights around the world and it is a profound signal of U.S. isolation at a time when we need to work cooperatively with our Security Council Partners."80 Lantos called the U.S. decision not to run in the second Council election an "act of unparalleled defeatism."81 At the same time, other Members of Congress were supportive of the Administration's decision not to run for a seat on the Council. In March 2006, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist wrote a letter to President Bush stating that the United States joining the Council "undermines our own credibility and confers unwarranted legitimacy on this new body."82 Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Ranking Member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, agreed with the Administration's decision not to run in the second Council election. She stated, "rather than standing as a strong defender of fundamental human rights, the Human Rights Council has faltered as a weak voice subject to gross political manipulation."83 79 Press Statement by Sean McCormack, Spokesperson, U.S. Department of State, March 6, 2007. 80 Warren Hoge, "U.S. Won't See a Seat on the U.N. Rights Council," The New York Times, April 6, 2006, p. 6. 81 Press Release, Office of Representative Tom Lantos, "Lantos Blasts Administration Decision Not to Take Part in United Nations Human Rights Council," March 6, 2007. Representative Henry Hyde, former Chairperson of the House International Relations Committee and a strong advocate of U.N. reform, also supported U.S. membership on the Council. At a March 27, 2006, news conference at U.N. Headquarters, Representative Hyde reportedly stated, "I think we should engage in the process.... It is the best that's available and you do what you can with what you have at hand." (Colum Lynch, "U.S. Will Not Join U.N. Rights Council," The Washington Post, April 7, 2006, p. A16.) 82 Column Lynch, "U.S. Will Not Join U.N. Rights Council," The Washington Post, April 7, 2006, p. A16. For further letter excerpts, see [http://www.cc.org/content.cfm?id=318]. 83 "Ross-Lehtinen Comments on U.S. Decision Not to Seek Membership on U.N. Human Rights Council," House Foreign Affairs Committee Press Release, March 6, 2007. CRS-20 Congressional Actions Regarding Council Funding Some Members of Congress sought to limit U.S. contributions to the Human Rights Council because of concerns over the Council's work.84 On December 26, 2007, Congress agreed to H.R. 2764, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161), which included a provision on Human Rights Council funding. Section 695 specified that "none of the funds appropriated by this Act may be made available for a United States contribution to the United Nations Human Rights Council." The provision specified that it shall not apply if (1) the Secretary of State certifies to the Committees on Appropriations that funding the Council is "in the national interest of the United States" or (2) the United States is a member of the Human Rights Council. U.S. Withholding of Council Funding (April 2008) In July 2007, the Administration stated that it remained committed to supporting human rights in the multilateral system, though it was "deeply skeptical that the U.N.'s Human Rights Council will, in the near future, play a constructive role in our efforts."85 The Administration also maintained that despite its concerns it will continue to support U.S. funding of the Council.86 On April 8, 2008, however, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Zalmay Khalilzad, stated that the United States would withhold a portion of U.S. contributions to the 2008 U.N. regular budget equivalent to the U.S. share of the Human Rights Council budget. Khalilzad stated that the Council "is less willing to take affirmative action, but is more willing to focus on Israel-bashing exercises."87 U.S. Decision to Disengage from the Council (June 2008) On June 6, 2008, the State Department spokesperson announced that the United States would engage with the Council "only when we [the United States] believe that there are matters of deep national interest before the Council and we feel compelled; 84 For information on possible political and budget implications of withholding Council funds, "U.S. Funding of the Council," under the "Congressional Issues" section. 85 Moreover, the Administration stated that the primary responsibility for the Council's failures "lies with Member States, rather than the U.N. as an institution." Remarks by Assistant Secretary for International Organization Affairs Kristin Silverberg, before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations Subcommittee on International Operations and Organizations, Democracy, and Human Rights, July 26, 2007. 86 Drawn from a press briefing of Mark Lagon, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs, U.S. Department of State, April 25, 2006, and remarks by Assistant Secretary for International Organization Affairs Kristin Silverberg, before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations Subcommittee on International Operations and Organizations, Democracy, and Human Rights, July 26, 2007. 87 U.S. Mission to the United Nations press release #075(08), "Statement by Zalmay Khalilzad on the Durban II Conference and the Human Rights Council," April 8, 2008, available at [http://www.usunnewyork.usmission.gov/press_releases/20080408_075.html]. CRS-21 otherwise, we are not going to."88 According to the official, instead of focusing on human rights situations around the world, the Council "turned into a forum that seems to be almost solely focused on bashing Israel." The official added that future U.S. participation will be "ad hoc."89 Previous U.S. Involvement Prior to the June 6, 2008, announcement that it would disengage from the Council, the United States was "actively involved" in the Council despite its non- member status.90 Specifically, the U.S. delegation conferred with like-minded Council members regarding "when to pursue condemnatory resolutions directed at violating states," and held various bilateral meetings on the subject.91 It also submitted proposals on the universal periodic review process and mandate review for consideration by the Council.92 Overall, the United States was satisfied with the Council decision to convene a fourth special session on the human rights situation in Darfur, Sudan. It welcomed the Council's special session and commended the Human Rights Council for "drawing the world's attention to this ongoing crisis." Additionally, it called on the government of Sudan to "shoulder its responsibility to protect all individuals against human rights violations," and also noted its concern with the related spreading violence in Chad and the Central African Republic.93 88 Daily Press Briefing, Sean McCormack, Spokesperson, U.S. Department of State, June 6, 2008, available at [http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpd/2008/jun/105716.htm]. 89 Ibid. The State Department official also stated, "Part of our strategy is to take a look at any suggestions or thoughts we have to improve the performance of the Council. There's a five-year review period, and that review period is going to fall outside the term of this Administration, but of course... we feel as stewards of the national interest, we are going to think about ways that might improve the function of the Council." 90 Remarks by Assistant Secretary for International Organization Affairs Kristin Silverberg, before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations Subcommittee on International Operations and Organizations, Democracy, and Human Rights, July 26, 2007, available at [http://www.senate.gov/~foreign/hearings/2007/hrg070726p.html]. 91 Testimony by Deputy Assistant Secretary Erica Barks-Ruggles, House International Relations Committee hearing, "U.N. Human Rights Council: Reform or Regression," September 6, 2006. 92 The Administration had previously stated that it would continue to work cooperatively with other like-minded countries in the upcoming sessions to ensure that the Council "reverses course" and fulfills its purpose. Statement by Miriam K. Hughes, Deputy U.S. Representative to the Economic and Social Council, on the Report of the Human Rights Council in the General Assembly, U.S. Mission to the United Nations Press Release, November 10, 2006. 93 Statement by Ambassador Warren W. Tichenor, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations in Geneva to the Human Rights Council Special Session on Sudan, U.S. Mission to the United Nations Press Release, December 12, 2006. CRS-22 The United States was pleased with the outcome of the second Council elections in May 2007. It strongly opposed the candidacy of Belarus, a country with a questionable human rights record, and was encouraged by the election of Bosnia and Herzegovina.94 U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad stated that Bosnia's election "bodes well for the reform for the Human Right Council ... and should be helpful in our [the United States'] deliberation on the future of our role vis-à-vis the Council."95 The Administration was also disappointed with the Council's new institution- building package adopted in June 2007.96 It called the package "seriously flawed," and voted against its adoption.97 The Administration expressed concern with the Council's decision to end the mandates of the U.N. special rapporteurs for Cuba and Belarus, countries that are widely believed to violate human rights. The United States also opposed the Council's decision to establish a permanent agenda item for the human rights situation in the Occupied Arab and Palestinian Territories. Future U.S. Role According to Administration officials, the United States continues to work with other multilateral human rights mechanisms, such as the U.N. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the General Assembly's Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian, and Cultural).98 Congress remains interested in the work of the Council both as a mechanism for addressing human rights abuses and as an element of broader U.N. reform. Ultimately, future U.S. policy toward the Council may depend on whether Congress and the Administration view the Council's future work as effective and credible. Response from Organizations and Other Governments Human Rights Groups and Other Organizations Response to the formation of the Council from a majority of NGOs, human rights groups, and other relevant agencies and organizations appears to be cautiously optimistic. Some groups share concerns about the Council's work, however, and one 94 Press statement by Sean McCormack, Spokesperson, U.S. Department of State, May 15, 2006. 95 Remarks by Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad at the General Assembly Stakeout, U.S. Mission to the United Nations Press Release, May 17, 2007. 96 For more information, see "Explanation of Vote on the Human Rights Council Institution Building Package," remarks to the Third Committee by Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, November 16, 2007. 97 Statement by Sean McCormack, State Department Spokesperson, June 19, 2007. 98 Remarks by Assistant Secretary for International Organization Affairs Kristin Silverberg, before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations Subcommittee on International Operations and Organizations, Democracy, and Human Rights, July 26, 2007. CRS-23 source of apprehension is the composition of Council membership. Though the new membership criteria discourage some countries from running, several perceived human rights abusers ran for seats and were elected to the Council in the first elections.99 Some groups are also concerned about the increase in frequency of the Council meetings. While they support the increase and believe it will make the Council more effective, they worry that smaller NGOs and human rights groups could have a difficult time obtaining funds to attend these meetings.100 Another common concern expressed by some groups is whether NGOs will continue to be active participants in the Council process.101 Proponents of the Council suggest that the decision of perceived human rights abusers such as Sudan, North Korea, and Zimbabwe not to run for Council election is an early indicator of the Council's success.102 Supporters also emphasize the importance of the universal periodic review process, observing that since every country is subject to periodic review, there may be less selectivity and targeting of specific countries in resolutions. Some groups are pleased that Council members will undergo a periodic review of their human rights record within their term of membership. Some also observe that the presence of many perceived promoters and protectors of human rights on the Council may positively influence members with poorly perceived human rights records. In addition, many human rights groups and NGOs are surprised and disappointed with the U.S. vote against the General Assembly resolution creating the Council.103 Some called the subsequent U.S. decision not to run in the first election a "missed opportunity," noting that the first year of the Council was most important because the procedures and future work were established during that time.104 Response to the Council's Work. Some NGOs were disappointed with the Council's focus on Israel during its regular and special sessions. Human Rights Watch called the Council's work during the second regular session a "huge disappointment," noting that while the Council debated human rights violations in countries and regions other than Israel, Lebanon, or the Occupied Palestinian 99 Human Rights Watch stated that seven of the 65 members running for a Council seat in the 2006 Council elections were "unworthy" of membership due to poor human rights records. They included Azerbaijan, China, Cuba, Iran, Pakistan, Russia, and Saudi Arabia. Only Iran was not elected. 100 Frederic Burnand, "Geneva NGOs Brace for New U.N. Rights Body," Swiss Info, March 23, 2006. 101 "Briefing Paper on Asian Candidates to the New Human Rights Council Membership," FORUM-ASIA, May 8, 2006, p. 3. 102 Edith M. Lederer, "Groups Hail New U.N. Human Rights Council," Associated Press, May 8, 2006. 103 Ten human rights groups wrote a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice urging U.S. support of the resolution. The letter is available at [http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/ 02/24/usint12716.htm]. 104 Maggie Farley, "U.S. Won't Seek Seat on U.N. Rights Panel," Los Angeles Times, April 7, 2006, p. 22. CRS-24 Territories, it did not pass any decisions or resolutions on these situations.105 Other human rights groups gave the Council credit for some of its improvements, noting that parts of the Council's work represent "steps in the right direction."106 However, these groups also emphasized that in order for the Council to be viewed as credible, it must address human rights violations that do not involve Israel. Most groups generally regarded the Council's fourth special session on Darfur as a positive development, but some were disappointed that the Council did not go far enough to condemn the government of Sudan for its role in the crisis. Some observers noted that the language in the resolution was relatively weak when compared to previous country-specific resolutions adopted by the Commission. U.N. Watch calls the resolution a "soft approach" and emphasized that it does not include the word "violation."107 Others contended that the text had to be watered-down in order to achieve consensus among Council members. Many organizations were concerned with the human rights records of some of the countries that were elected to the Council during the second election in May 2007 -- particularly Angola, Egypt, and Qatar.108 Some organizations were also worried that the General Assembly could not select among competing candidates in each regional group because, in all but two cases, regional groups nominated the same number of countries as there are seats available.109 Some groups were dismayed with the U.S. government's June 2008 decision to disengage from the Council except in matters of national interest. A representative for Human Rights Watch, an international NGO, stated, "The U.S. decision to walk away from the Human Rights Council is counter-productive and short-sighted. Whatever the Council's problems, this decision is a victory for abusive states and a betrayal of those fighting for their rights worldwide."110 Amnesty International also 105 "Human Rights Watch Blasts New U.N. Rights Watchdog," Reuters, October 6, 2006. The Human Rights Watch Annual Report is available at [http://www.hrw.org/wr2k6/]. For its perspective on U.N. human rights bodies, including the Council, see pages 32-35. 106 "First Session of the Human Rights Council: A Step in the Right Direction," Amnesty International Public Statement, July 3, 2006. 107 "Human Rights Council Darfur Resolution Falls Short," U.N. Watch Press Release, December 13, 2006. 108 "Evaluation of 2007-2010 U.N. Human Rights Council Candidates: Joint Analysis by U.N. Watch and Freedom House," May 7, 2007. 109 Joint NGO Letter to the President of the U.N. General Assembly regarding the U.N. Human Rights Council Elections, from: Amnesty International, the Carter Center, Democracy Coalition Project, Human Rights Watch, Institute for Global Policy, Open Society Institute, World Federation of United Nations Associations, and International Service for Human Rights. The letter is available at [http://www.ishr.ch/lca/statements _council/otherngos/JointNGOLetter_Elections.pdf]. 110 "HRW Slams U.S. Over Disengagement from UN Rights Council," The Hindu, June 7, 2008, and US: Leaving UN Rights Council Fails Victims of Abuse: US Failure to Engage Added to Council's Shortcomings," June 6, 2008, available at (continued...) CRS-25 disagreed with the U.S. move, calling it an "aberration."111 Other groups, however, supported the U.S. decision to withdraw from the Council. The International Organization Against Torture, viewed the move as a political gesture, stating, "The U.S. has always clearly shown its opposition to the Council. This is a slightly more public way of putting pressure on it in order to raise the stakes."112 Other Governments There was a wide range of reactions from U.N. member states regarding the establishment of the Human Right Council. A main point of contention was the number of votes required for election.113 Overall, however, most parties support the mainstreaming of human rights issues into the U.N. system and agree that the Council should be elevated to a subsidiary body of the General Assembly within the U.N. system. Member states that were consistent targets of country-specific resolutions under the Commission on Human Rights, including China and Iran, oppose the "politicization and finger-pointing" they say are associated with country resolutions.114 Most countries agree that the resolution creating the Council is a fair compromise, and that the true worth of the Council will be determined through its work Some governments were disappointed with the U.S. decision to vote against the resolution creating the Council.115 The United Kingdom and other European Union members actively lobbied the United States to support the resolution.116 U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Mark Lagon noted that a number of countries approached the United States about running and offered their support in both the first election and future elections.117 Some governments attempted to link the U.S. decision not to run 110 (...continued) [http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2008/06/06/usint19048.htm]. 111 "U.S. Quits Human Rights Council?" Human Rights Tribune, June 6, 2008, available at [http://www.humanright-geneva.info/US-quits-Human-Rights-Council,3184]. 112 Ibid. 113 Some countries, such as Argentina, the European Union, New Zealand, and the United States, supported the requirement of a two-thirds majority vote in the General Assembly for election to the Council instead of an absolute majority. 114 Ibid. 115 In a Kremlin International News Broadcast interview on March 2, 2006, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Yakovenko stated that the United States should be elected to the Council if it runs, and that Russia would like the United States to participate in the Council's work. 116 British Ambassador to the United Nations Emyr Jones Parry said that adopting a text without U.S. support "isn't good for human rights and not particularly good for the Council," in a March 2, 2006 Associated Press article by Edith M. Lederer titled, "European Union backs proposal for new U.N. Human Rights Council, leaving U.S. isolated." 117 Press briefing of Mark Lagon, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs, U.S. Department of State, April 25, 2006. CRS-26 in the first election with its alleged human rights abuses toward detainees in the Guantanamo Naval Base in Cuba and Abu Ghraib in Iraq.118 Congressional Issues U.S. Funding of the Council Comprehensive U.N. reform is a pressing issue for Congress, and the Human Rights Council is a component of this broader U.N. reform effort.119 As a result, there is continued congressional interest in U.S. funding of the Council. Specifically, some Members of Congress have proposed the United States withhold a proportionate share of its assessed contributions, approximately 22%, from the U.N. regular budget, which is used to fund the Council. Since 1980, the United States has withheld proportionate shares of its contributions to the U.N. regular budget for U.N. programs and activities it has opposed. However, withholding Council funds in this manner would be a largely symbolic policy action because assessed contributions finance the entire U.N. regular budget and not specific parts of it.120 On December 26, 2007, the President signed into law H.R. 2764, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L.110-161), which prohibits U.S. contributions to support the Human Rights Council unless (1) the Secretary of State certifies to the Committees on Appropriations that funding the Council is "in the national interest of the United States" or (2) the United States is a member of the Council (Sec. 695).121 The Congressional Budget Office estimates that under current law U.S. contributions to the Human Rights Council for 2008 and 2009 will be approximately $1.5 million per year.122 Impact of Observer Status The ability of the United States to promote its human rights agenda within the U.N. framework may be significantly affected by its observer status and its initial policy position on the Council.123 Under the ECOSOC rules of procedure for non- 118 U.N. document A/60/704, "Statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Cuba," February 28, 2006. 119 For information on recent congressional efforts to limit U.S. contributions to the Human Rights Council, see the "Congressional Reaction" section. 120 In the past, the United States withheld certain amounts from U.N. activities and/or programs pending clarification on the exact cost or the program or activity. This was done in order to determine a more appropriate measure of the proportionate figure to withhold. 121 Consolidated Appropriations Act 2008, (P.L. 110-161, December 26, 2007; 121 Stat. 1844). 122 For more information, see Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate for S. 1698 (110th), July 16, 2007, available at [http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/83xx/doc8328/s1698.pdf]. 123 As an observer state, the United States may attend and speak at the proceedings of the (continued...) CRS-27 Member State participation, the Council may invite "any State that is not one of its own members to participate in its deliberations on any matter of particular concern to that State." The invited observer status does not carry the right to vote, but allows the state to submit proposals that can be put forward for vote at the request of any Council member.124 Many Council members may be interested in U.S. statements and policies, but the United States's inability to vote may diminish its influence on the work of the Council. As a result, if the United States chose to participate in the Council, it may have to rely on close collaboration and cooperation with like-minded countries to further its human rights agenda. In 2002, the United States held observer status on the Commission on Human Rights for the first time in the Commission's history (previously it was a member with full voting rights). It was subsequently elected from 2003 to 2006. The Council and Alleged U.S. Human Rights Abuses When considering the work of the Council, Members of Congress will likely monitor its activities related to the United States. The following sections address recent instances of the Council's involvement and/or investigations regarding human rights and the United States. Council Report on Detainees in Guantanamo Bay. On February 16, 2006, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights released a report on the "situation of detainees at Guantanamo Bay."125 The report was written by five independent rapporteurs appointed by the Chairperson of the Commission on Human Rights.126 It alleges, among other things, that the United States violated the human rights of detainees held at the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center in Cuba, and that consequently the facility should be closed. According to the report, the United States is responsible for the "force-feeding of detainees on hunger strike," and using "excessive violence" when transporting detainees. The report also alleges that detainees are denied the right to "challenge the legality of their detention before a judicial body," which violates the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.127 It requests that the five U.N. rapporteurs be granted full and unlimited access to the facility, and allowed private interviews with detainees. When researching the report, the rapporteurs collected 123 (...continued) UPR working group and the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee. 124 Rules of Procedure of the U.N. Economic and Social Council, part XII, rules 1-3. 125 U.N. document, E/CN.4/2006/120, February 15, 2006. 126 The special rapporteurs include Leila Zerrougui, Chairperson rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention; Leandro Despouy, rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers; Manfred Nowak, the rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment; Asthma Jahangir, the rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief; and Paul Hunt, the rapporteur on the right to physical and mental health. 127 The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, was adopted and opened for signature by General Assembly resolution 39/46 on December 10, 1984. The Convention entered into force on June 26, 1987, and the United States became party to it on November 20, 1994. CRS-28 their information from interviews with former detainees, reports from non- governmental organizations (NGOs), media reports, and a questionnaire answered by the United States. The rapporteurs were not permitted to visit the detention facility in Guantanamo Bay. In its rebuttal to the report, the United States wrote that it is "engaged in a continuing armed conflict against Al Qaida, that the law of war applies to the conduct of that war and related detention operations."128 The Administration maintains that detainees at Guantanamo Bay are treated "humanely," and that potential human rights violations are and have been thoroughly investigated by the U.S. government.129 On July 7, 2006, the U.N. special rapporteurs, acting in their new capacity as Council experts, renewed their call for the closing of the Guantanamo Detention Center. They encouraged the United States to develop a timeline for closing the facility, and urged U.N. member states, the International Committee for the Red Cross (ICRC),130 and other relevant agencies and organizations to "collaborate actively, constructively, and urgently with the United States," to ensure the closure of the detention center.131 Inquiry of the Council's Special Rapporteur on Human Rights while Countering Terrorism. In October 2006, the Council's Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms while Countering Terrorism, Martin Scheinin of Finland, wrote a letter of inquiry to the United States regarding its counter-terrorism practices.132 In December 2006, the Administration invited Scheinin to visit the United States to discuss his concerns.133 Scheinin hoped to engage in a dialogue with U .S. officials and groups to discuss a variety of issues, including "U.S. counter-terrorism laws, policies and practices ... issues regarding detention, arrest and trial of terrorist suspects and the rights of victims of terrorism or persons negatively impacted by counter terrorism measures."134 128 U.N. document, E/CN.4/2006/120, Annex II, p. 53-54, February 15, 2006. 129 Press Briefing by Scott McClellan, Spokesman, The White House, February 16, 2006. 130 Since 2002, the ICRC has visited the Guantanamo Detention Center to monitor whether detainees are treated in accordance with international law. The ICRC has stated it "remains concerned that significant problems regarding conditions and treatment at Guantanamo Bay have not been adequately addressed," and "will pursue its discussions on these issues with the U.S. authorities." More information on the role of ICRC at U.S. detention centers can be found at [http://www.icrc.org]. 131 U.N. Press Release, "U.N. Rights Experts Ask International Community to Aid with Expeditious Closure of Guantanamo Detention Centre," July 6, 2006. 132 In the inquiry letter, Scheinin expressed concern that the U.S. Military Commission Act may violate U.S. obligations under international human rights law. 133 U.N. Press Release, "United States Accepts Visit Request of U.N. Expert on Human Rights and Counter-terrorism," January 16, 2007. 134 Ibid. Scheinin also stated his intent to identify counter-terrorism measures and formulate conclusions and recommendations that balance human rights with the fight against terrorism. CRS-29 Scheinin visited the United States from May 16 to 25, 2007.135 He met with officials from the Departments of State, Homeland Security, Defense, and Justice, and traveled to Miami to observe the trial against Jose Padilla. He was not allowed access to the detention center at Guantanamo Bay to interview detainees. Scheinin met with some Members of Congress, as well as academics and NGOs. In his preliminary findings, Scheinin dismissed criticism by some that the United States had become an enemy of human rights and complimented its judicial system, rule of law, and respect for individual rights.136 Scheinin emphasized, however, that he does not consider the U.S. fight against terrorism to be a "war" -- though he recognizes that the United States views itself as "engaged in an armed conflict with Al Qaeda and the Taliban."137 He also stated that the United States violated international law by detaining prisoners in Guantanamo Bay for several years without charges, thereby "undermining the right of fair trial."138 In addition, he highlighted reports from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) that noted the use of enhanced interrogation techniques by the United States. These activities, according to Scheinin, are in violation of international law, particularly the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.139 He also noted with regret that laws such as the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, and the Military Commissions Act of 2006 eliminate important legal mechanisms that protect individual rights. Scheinin is expected to present a full report on his findings to the Human Rights Council at a future session. U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Zalmay Khalilzad disagreed with Scheinin's findings, stating, "We have a different point of view."140 Khalilzad emphasized that the United States is following U.S. laws, procedures, and decision- making authorities. He stated, "We are a rule of law country and our decisions are based on rule of law."141 135 U.N. Press Release, "U.N. Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Counter-terrorism to Visit United States," May 10, 2007. For an overview of the Special Rapporteur's mandate, see [http://www.ohchr.org/english/issues/terrorism/rapporteur/srchr.htm] 136 For more detailed information on Scheinin's findings, see U.N. Office in Geneva Press Release, "Preliminary Findings on the Visit to the United States by Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Counter-Terrorism," May 29, 2007. 137 Ibid. 138 Ibid. Scheinin also stated that U.S. labeling of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay as enemy combatants is a "description of convenience, without legal effect" since it is not a category under international law, where individuals are described as either "combatants" or "civilians." 139 The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights entered into force on March 23, 1976. It was signed by the United States on October 5, 1977, and was ratified on September 8, 1992. As of April 19, 2007, 160 countries are party to the Covenant. The text of the Covenant is available at [http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/a_ccpr.htm]. 140 Evelyn Leopold, "U.N. Expert Faults U.S. on Human Rights in Terror Laws," The Washington Post, May 26, 2007. 141 Ibid. CRS-30 Inquiry of the Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants. The Council's Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants, Jorge Bustamante, visited the United States from April 30 to May 17, 2007.142 He visited the Arizona and California borders to observe U.S. Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations. He also met with migrants in Florida, New York, Georgia, and Washington, DC, and visited the Florence Detention Center in Florence, Arizona, to observe the living conditions of migrant detainees. Bustamante's preliminary findings highlight (1) the lack of a centralized system for tracking information on detained migrants, (2) the lack of representation for migrants being deported (many of whom are often forced to represent themselves in judicial proceedings), and (3) poor working and living conditions for migrants affected by Hurricane Katrina.143 In addition, Bustamante recommends that the United States work to ensure that its domestic laws and immigration activities are "consistent with its international obligations to protect the rights of migrant workers," especially in the context of international agreements such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. He also stated that the United States "overly-relies" on local law enforcement for its immigration activities, which could potentially impact the federal government's ability to effectively address migrant issues and ensure compliance with international law.144 Bustamante is expected to present a full report on his findings to the Human Rights Council at a future session. 142 More information on the mandate of the Council's Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants is available at [http://www.ohchr.org/english/issues/migration/ rapporteur/]. 143 For a more detailed description on Bustamante's findings, see U.N. Office in Geneva Press Release, "Special Rapporteur on Human Rights of Migrants Ends Visit to the United States," May 21, 2007. 144 Ibid. CRS-31 Appendix A. Legislation in the 110th Congress An overview of legislation related to the funding and reform of the Human Rights Council in the 110th Congress follows. Proposed Legislation S. 1698, the Human Rights Council Reform Act of 2007, directs that "no funds appropriated or otherwise made available by any Act for contributions for international organizations may be made available to support the United Nations Human Rights Council." The bill was introduced by Senator Norm Coleman on June 26, 2007, and was placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar on July 25, 2007. H.R. 225 states that the new Human Rights Council "fails to adequately reform the United Nations Commission on Human Rights." The bill seeks to withhold U.S. funding of the Council beginning October 1, 2007. It was introduced on January 4, 2007, by Representative Cliff Stearns, and was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. H.R. 2712, the United Nations Transparency, Accountability, and Reform act of 2007, requires the Secretary of State to certify to Congress that no Human Rights Council members are subject to U.N. Security Council sanctions or under a Security Council-mandated investigation for human rights abuses. The act directs that if these requirements are not met, the United States must withhold a proportionate share of its contributions to the Council from the U.N. regular budget, and shall not run for a seat on the Human Rights Council (Title IV, Sec. 402). The act was introduced on June 14, 2007, by Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. Enacted or Passed Legislation H.R. 2764, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L.110-161) prohibits U.S. contributions to support the Human Rights Council unless (1) the Secretary of State certifies to the Committees on Appropriations that funding the Council is "in the national interest of the United States;" or (2) the United States is a member of the Council (Sec. 695).145 H.Res. 557 "strongly condemns the United Nations Human Rights Council for ignoring severe human rights abuses in various countries, while choosing to unfairly target Israel by including it as the only country permanently placed on the Council's agenda." The resolution was introduced by Representative John Campbell on July 19, 2007, and was passed/agreed to on September 25, 2007 145 Consolidated Appropriations Act 2008, (P.L. 110-161, December 26, 2007; 121 Stat. 1844). CRS-32 Appendix B. Human Rights Council Membership Table B-1. Human Rights Council Membership, by Regional Group Latin American and Caribbean Eastern European Western European African States (13) Asian States (13) States (8) States (6) and Other States (7) Angola (2010)a Bangladesh (2009) Argentina (2011) Azerbaijan (2009) Canada (2009) Cameroon (2009) Bahrain (2011) Bolivia (2010) Bosnia & France (2011) Burkina Faso (2011) China (2009) Brazil (2011) Herzegovina (2010) Germany (2009) Djibouti (2009) India (2010) Chile (2011) Slovakia (2011) Italy (2010) Egypt (2010) Indonesia (2010) Cuba (2009) Russian Federation Netherlands (2010) Gabon (2011) Japan (2011) Mexico (2009) (2009) Switzerland (2009) Ghana (2011) Jordan (2009) Nicaragua (2010) Slovenia (2010) United Kingdom (2011) Madagascar (2010) Malaysia (2009) Uruguay (2009) Ukraine (2011) Mauritius (2009) Pakistan (2011) Nigeria (2009) Philippines (2010) Senegal (2009) Qatar (2010) South Africa (2010) Republic of Korea Zambia (2011) (2011) Saudi Arabia (2009) Notes: Council membership is staggered by year. All Council members are eligible for reelection for a full second term. a. Dates represent year of term end. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For other versions of this document, see http://wikileaks.org/wiki/CRS-RL33608