U.S. Non-Paper on Mandate Review

The challenge to the new Human Rights Council to conduct a full review of all mandates from the Commission on Human Rights was laid out in OP 6 of A/Res/60/251, as follows: “Decides also that the Council shall assume, review and, where necessary, improve and rationalize all mandates, mechanisms, functions and responsibilities of the Commission on Human Rights in order to maintain a system of special procedures, expert advice and a complaint procedure; the Council shall complete this review within one year after the holding of its first session...”

Mandate Review and Special Procedures

In the U.S. view, the review of all mandates must be carried out concurrently with reform and strengthening of the system of Special Procedures. This is an opportunity to consider criteria for the establishment of Special Procedures mandates, with an eye to ensuring that they have real impact on the ground, rather than exist solely for purposes of political brinkmanship. Furthermore, as Special Procedures mandates have financial implications, and resources are scarce, new mandates must not duplicate existing ones, nor duplicate the work more effectively performed by other relevant UN agencies.

In our view, to strengthen the credibility of the Special Procedures mechanism, the nomination and selection process of special rapporteurs and working group members must be enhanced. Nominees must have strong academic and/or professional credentials relevant to the mandate with which they are entrusted, and must be able to demonstrate a capacity to undertake their responsibilities in an impartial manner. No nominee may be an employee of any branch of the government that nominated him. Mandate-holders should serve a maximum of two 3-year consecutive terms.

Furthermore, we would like to see the Council draw up a Code of Conduct for all mandate holders. Mandates must exist to promote and protect human rights, as envisioned by the Human Rights Council members who create the mandates. Mandates should not be used as a soap box that mandate holders abuse to promote their own agendas. The suggested Code of Conduct should be accompanied by the elaboration of standard operating procedures (SOPs), based on careful review of working methods and best practices.

Country-specific Mandates

The United States believes that all country-specific mandates must be retained, as they provide the only leverage the international community has to bring pressure to bear upon those countries that have no interest in the promotion and protection of human rights.

Thematic Mandates

Thematic mandates must address human rights violations as they occur anywhere in the world.

Expert Advice

The Sub-Commission of the now-defunct Commission on Human Rights has outlived its usefulness and should be eliminated. It is not necessary to create a new body to provide expert advice. We believe that the Human Rights Council already has available to it the expert advice called for in OP 6 of Resolution 60/251 in the form of the Special Procedures mandate-holders, the expertise found in the treaty bodies and other mechanisms of the United Nations system. While remaining vigilant regarding financial implications, the Council could contract an expert study if necessary. This would be less resource intensive than the demands of a new body.

Complaint Procedure

The 1503 Complaint Procedure is an important human rights mechanism which allows victims and other concerned parties to report on systematic and gross violations of human rights after all other means of remedies in the country in question have been exhausted. This mechanism should be transferred to the Council from the Sub-Commission. Strict enforcement of criteria for admissibility must be maintained. Furthermore, there is no room for regional distribution of cases: either a case meets the criteria to be forwarded to the Council through the 1503 Procedure, or it does not. The geographic origin of the case should be irrelevant.