U.N. Rights Monitors Under Threat, Say NGOs 
May 9, 2007
Asian Tribune
Original Source: http://www.asiantribune.com/index.php?q=node/5642/print

The Geneva-based U.N. Human Rights Council (HRC), which oversees these monitors, is expected to debate an African-sponsored resolution calling for a complete review of the status quo. The deadline for the review is Jun. 18. 
But over 12,000 individuals, including 17 regional and international non-governmental organizations (NGOs) from 147 countries, have sent a petition to the president of the HRC, Luis Alfonso de Alba, expressing strong reservations over the proposed move. 
The NGOs include Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, World Organization Against Torture, Global Justice, African Centre for Democracy and Human Rights Studies, Association for the Prevention of Torture and Human Rights First. 
The signatories also include victims of human rights violations, parliamentarians, and national human rights commissioners. 
The review of the special procedures has the potential to strengthen the system so that it is better equipped to support the (Human Rights) Council in protecting human rights. 
However, the petition points out, some member states are supporting proposals that would weaken the special procedures by undermining their ability to work effectively, independently and without interference from states. 
Such proposals, the petition says, include a draft code of conduct that contains provisions to regulate the special procedures' activities and render them less effective. 
There is also a proposal for the election of human rights monitors by governments which could politicize the process. 
Currently, these monitors are independent from governments, both operationally and through their selection process, because they are appointed by the president of the HRC. 
The petition also says that special procedures have long been considered one of the most effective and critical components of the U.N. human rights machinery. 
They issue hundreds of urgent appeals and communications each year on behalf of thousands of victims, as well as undertaking on-site visits and reporting publicly on their findings, the petition adds. 
Yvonne Terlingen, Amnesty International Representative at the United Nations, said monitoring by U.N.'s human rights experts is one the greatest achievements of the human rights system. 
Because of their independence and expertise, they have become symbols of the conscience of the world community, bringing hope to victims of human rights violations everywhere, through their sustained protection efforts and urgent interventions for victims of abuses and those defending human rights, she said. 
The Human Rights Council's current efforts to review the system must not be allowed to be abused to weaken their powers and independence, Terlingen told IPS. 
She said all members of the Human Rights Council must heed their promise to uphold the highest human rights standards and use this review as a unique chance to strengthen the system of independent experts, and not to undermine them. 
Alex Neve, secretary-general of Amnesty International Canada, one of the signatories to the petition, says the special procedures are too important for the protection of human rights to be treated as bargaining chips in some grand bargain on human rights. 
He warns that the immediate cost of weakening the special procedures system will not be borne by governments, but by the thousands of victims and human rights defenders who look to the special procedures for protection. 
Neve also said that member states are in danger of squandering this precious legacy for political ends. 
According to Article 5 of the proposed code of conduct, human rights monitors (or mandate-holders, as they are called) should: (a) establish the facts, based on objective, reliable information that has been duly verified by them; and (b) evaluate these facts in light of universally recognized human standards and of international conventions ratified by the state concerned. 
And according to Article 8, mandate-holders must: (a) be guided by the principles of discretion, transparency and impartiality, and exercise caution in gathering information; (b) verify the veracity of the facts along with the validity of the positions on which they base their reports and conclusions; and (c) give representatives of the concerned state the opportunity of commenting on their assessment and of responding to the allegations made against this State. 
In their relations with the media, human rights monitors are expected to avoid making any declaration that is incompatible with the integrity, independence and impartiality which their status requires, and which is likely to undermine a constructive dialogue among stakeholders or hamper the efficient and consensual promotion and protection of human rights. 
Additionally, they are expected to ensure that the concerned state and the Council are the first recipients of their conclusions and recommendations, barring any attempts to release such information first to the media. 
Article 12 of the draft code says that mandate-holders must ensure that all their communications to the government of a member state concerned, including under an urgency procedure, are addressed exclusively to the Permanent Mission of the relevant state duly accredited to the Office of the United Nations at Geneva, in compliance with the current regulations and practices within the organization. 
According to the draft, the purpose of the proposed code is to define the standards of professional behavior that mandate-holders under the special procedures of the Human Rights Council are called upon to observe whilst discharging their mandates. 
- Inter Press Service (IPS) News Agency -