Original Source: http://www.unog.ch/unog/website/news_media.nsf/(httpNewsByYear_en)/FBC50E44E6E97BE3C12574A4003985B0?OpenDocument

HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSES PROGRAMME OF WORK
Forms a Drafting Group on Communications
13 August 2008
The Human Rights Council Advisory Committee this morning discussed its agenda and programme of work, including new priorities. It also appointed the members of the Working Group on Communications of the Human Rights Council Complaint Procedure.

In the discussion, the Committee Experts discussed whether they should have one or two sessions a year. The President underlined that the Committee should make suggestions to the Council concerning a list of priorities of topics that should be dealt with. 

The Committee decided to appoint the following members of the Advisory Committee as members of the Working Group on Communications: Chen Shiqiu, Emmanuel Decaux, Vladimir Kartashkin, Halima Embarek Warzazi and Miguel Alfonso Martínez.

Speaking were the following Experts of the Advisory Committee: Vladimir Kartashkin, Emmanuel Decaux, Halima Embarek Warzazi and Miguel Alfonso Martínez.

Also speaking this morning were the delegations of Mexico, Bangladesh and India. A representative of the Indian Council of South America also took the floor.

This afternoon, there will be a first reading of draft recommendations from drafting groups in a private meeting. The plenary meeting will resume at 3 p.m. on Thursday, 14 August. 

Discussion on Programme of Work

Emmanuel Decaux, Advisory Committee Expert, said that it might be premature to start out with a complete plan of work for one year. The agenda would depend on what would be requested of the Committee. For example, for the draft declaration on human rights education and training, 18 months or two years would be a reasonable timeframe, depending on what else was asked of the Committee. Concerning new priorities, the Committee had to take a role as head hunter. They had to find out what was not working properly. The green light from the Human Rights Council was needed to move forward. Work had to be rationalized and an annual programme had to be planned. The programme should also be kept open for non governmental organizations to participate. 

Vladimir Kartashkin, Advisory Committee Expert, said that in his view, at the next session, they would definitely have before them the question of implementation of the new tasks that would be entrusted to them by the Council at its next session. They would obviously also have to continue their work in the three drafting groups, namely the groups on rules of procedure, human rights education and training and the right to food. They would have to wait for the answer of the Council on their request concerning the fate of the studies of the former Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights. They could maybe also ask the Council to extend the length of one of their sessions, but at this time he saw no reason to ask the Council for extra time. They had to first focus their efforts on implementing the Council's resolutions.

Miguel Alfonso MartInez, Advisory Committee President, said that they had to discuss whether they would meet once or twice a year. Two separate sessions would help them to discuss the topics put before the Committee. He underlined that the working groups were ad hoc groups and not permanent groups. In the next session it would be decided whether work would be continued in them or not. The President noted that the more drafting groups there were, the more the Committee would lose sense of the overall collegiate nature of the body. The collegiate nature of the body had to be defended. 

The Council had given the Committee guidance regarding studies. Many interested parties were trying to convince the international community that work on indigenous affairs was now completed. But it always broke through that there were many areas in international norms that were not regulated. The President suggested that before thinking of studies, it would be useful to draw up a list of topics that could be priorities. 

JOSE GUEVARA (Mexico) said that Mexico agreed with the President that the result of the work of the Advisory Committee in the form of studies or recommendations had to be the result of collegiate work, with appropriate regional representation. But the institution building package texts also said that the Advisory Committee could be requested to carry out tasks collectively through smaller teams or by individuals. Thus, the Advisory Committee had a flexible mandate.

Miguel Alfonso MartInez, Advisory Committee President, said that the collegiate aspect was not in contradiction of working in smaller groups. In the end, all the work would be discussed in the plenary.

MUSTAFIZUR RAHMAN (Bangladesh) said that the collective wisdom and the collegiate nature of the Advisory Committee were important. There were time constraints. Small groups of Committee Experts could work between sessions and the results could be discussed at the plenary meetings. It was logical to have two sessions, since the Council was also meeting more than once a year. The Committee could also recommend topics to the Council and did not only have to carry out the work that had been assigned by the Council. 

MUNU MAHAWAR (India) said that it was India's understanding that it was true that the institution building package talked about smaller teams. It was also true, that the final text said that it should be possible for individuals to submit their own research directly to the Council. But such individual effort would have to be transmitted to the plenary of the Advisory Committee first for acceptance and discussion between all members of the Committee. Such discussion would of course take much time and the Committee had limited time to do so. Another solution was to send directly the work to the Council, without comment by the Advisory Committee.

RONALD BARNES, of the Indian Council of South America, asked the Advisory Committee to submit as a recommendation that its Experts start a study and call for a seminar concerning self-determination of indigenous peoples. He formally called on the Experts to recommend this as a new study.