Statement of the United States on Expert Advice

Delivered by Jan Levin
Political Officer, U.S. Mission

Geneva,
December 7, 2006

Thank you, Mr. Ambassador.

The United States would like to express to you its deep appreciation for the work you have done on establishing the expert advice mechanism for the Human Rights Council.

The United States believes that the Council would be best served by a system of expert advice that is flexible, small, and responsive solely to the needs of the Council.

To that end, we would favor the establishment of either a roster or other ad hoc body that could be convened at the request of the Council in order to respond to specific tasks the Council would ask of it.

If the preference of most delegations is for a standing body, the United States could support the concept of a very small standing body, on the order of 5-6 members. For my government, the overriding issue of concern isn’t what form this body takes, but that the body be subordinate to the Council, with its members carrying out work as requested by the Council, with a focus on implementation, not on standard-setting, as called for by the Secretary General in his report, In Larger Freedom. In fact we believe an expert advice mechanism would have the greatest value in offering advice on the design of technical assistance programs, which would best serve the needs of governments seeking help to deepen and broaden the roots of human rights protections.

In order to depoliticize the process by which experts are named to serve, and to ensure the highest possible level of professionalism and credibility, its members should not be elected. Instead, they should be nominated by states, NGOs or regional groups, and selected by the President of the Human Rights Council, in consultation with the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Any expert should be independent of the government that nominated him or her, and should have demonstrable professional and academic credentials. We would agree with the consensus view of the working group that experts should serve no more than two terms of three years each.

While we believe that, ideally, all geographic regions should be represented, we do not think that this goal trumps the importance of independence and expertise. We also note our concern with introducing as formal criteria the representation of the “main legal and civilizational traditions.” In our view, maintaining appropriate geographic diversity is consistent with UN practice and will satisfy the goal that experts represent the range of legal traditions and a variety of cultures and civilizations.

Finally, on methods of work, we believe that the experts could work individually, but not through the working groups of the former Sub-Commission. In our view, with the notable exception of the 1503 procedure, the Sub-Commission’s working groups have outlived their usefulness and often duplicate work being done more effectively in other fora.

Thank you, Mr. Ambassador.