United States Statement by Lynn Cassel,
Deputy Permanent Representative
US Mission to the United Nations
Geneva, November 22, 2005


Briefing of UNGA President Eliasson to Human Rights Commission Members

· Thank you. I would like to begin by thanking Ambassadors Eliasson, Arias and Kumalo for their efforts to bring to a successful conclusion the mandate of the Outcome Document to establish a new Human Rights Council.

· I would like to take this opportunity to review for my Geneva-based colleagues the main features of the Human Rights Council as the United States envisions it.

Mandate:

· We believe strongly that the Council should promote the strengthening of Member States’ abilities to implement their human rights commitments.

· An effective body must also have the authority to make recommendations to other UN bodies – the General Assembly, of course; but also the UN Security Council and others as appropriate.

· The resolution creating the Council should establish the Council’s mandate to respond to urgent or continuing human rights violations.

· It also should support the Office of the High Commissioner in efforts to mainstream human rights throughout the UN system.

Membership:

· The resolution should establish that the Council reflect a diverse regional distribution and have a small enough size to be poised to act to help governments or peoples in need. We believe a 30-member Council would be about right.

· We believe that new members of the Council should be elected individually and directly by the General Assembly by a 2/3 majority.

· The resolution should emphasize that the members of the Human Rights Council must have a demonstrated commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights

· It should require prospective members to submit to the UNGA President a letter that outlines their qualifications for membership.

· The resolution should require prospective candidates to receive the specific endorsement of a majority of States in their regional groups via letters from a senior political level to the UNGA President that indicate the qualifications of the potential candidate.

· The resolution should stress that no Government against which measures have been imposed and are in effect under Articles 41 or 42 of the UN Charter for human rights-related reasons, that is subject to a UN Security Council Commission of Inquiry, or that is subject to a similar UN Security Council procedures related to human rights may serve on the Council. This minimal disqualifier is simple and sensible, and avoids a controversial debate over complicated or sweeping criteria.

Working Methods:

· The resolution should call for the Human Rights Council to be a standing body that meets multiple times per year in Geneva (and we recommend every two months for two week sessions). The Council’s Chair or a simple majority of members, or the High Commissioner for Human Rights or the Secretary-General would each be able to call for additional sessions as needed.

· We believe that the Human Rights Council should set its own agenda and working methods.

· The new Human Rights Council should be empowered to review the agenda and activities of the Commission on Human Rights and should be granted the responsibility to preserve the elements it deems necessary to fulfill its mandate.

· The resolution should suspend further meetings of the Subcommission for the Promotion and Protection on Human Rights until the Human Rights Council makes a determination about what subsidiary bodies it wishes to create.

· Many countries have spoken about the system of Special Procedures being preserved. We agree; many special procedures have important value-added in the human rights system.

· We must empower the new Human Rights Council to review the mandates of the existing Special Procedures of the Commission on Human Rights and re-affirm, renew, or revoke them as it deems appropriate. We must better rationalize between them where their mandates overlap. The High Commissioner for Human Rights might best be given an increased role to make recommendations in this regard.

· A final point on preserving the strengths of the Commission on Human Rights: we want to echo the sentiments that many other delegations have made in the past weeks and months that we must preserve the essential role NGOs play in the Commission on Human Rights in the new Human Rights Council.

· While many of the specific transitional questions will emerge more clearly as we clarify the main outlines of a Human Rights resolution, one thing is clear: we cannot hold another CHR in a business-as-usual fashion.

· The Outcome Document enjoins us to conclude our negotiations on a resolution as soon as possible, and we support those advocating agreement on a viable resolution establishing the Human Rights Council by the end of the year. If we can accomplish this, there would be no need to convene another Commission at all.

· If necessary, however, we could accept the Commission convening one more time – not for a full six-week session – but instead a targeted session that completes the transitional arrangements for the new Human Rights Council.