Mr President

I would like to thank you for your presentation of the result of the consultations you have carried out on the modalities of the review of the Council and for the questionnaire before us today. This review carries in our view the highest importance and we all share the desire to reinforce the effectiveness and credibility of this Council and to preserve the spirit of dialogue and constructive engagement that have prevailed in the last four years. It would have been our preference that consultations on the modalities be discussed within the Bureau, since the latter is after all composed of representatives of the various regional groups. 
We would like to encourage the President of the Council to pursue his coordination and consultation with the president of the General Assembly with a view to ensure the proper synchronization and sequencing between the reviews in Geneva and NY. Since the Council is a subsidiary body of the General Assembly, and since the latter will in any case have before it the result of the review undertaken in Geneva, hence it is important that the GA review follow the review of work and functioning of the Council in Geneva and not precede it nor be parallel to it. We believe that there is a need for a short procedural decision be adopted in the GA to this effect and that this is a matter on which all sides can agree and can accordingly inform their counterparts in New York to issue such a decision. The NAM chapter in Geneva has already requested the New York Coordinating Bureau of the Nam in New York to intervene with the President of the GA to this effect. We hope that all groups can do the same.
	Pending consideration by the NAM, I would like on my national capacity to emphasize a few points:
1- It is my delegation view that we are embarking on a review of the Council and not a reform, hence the importance that our work be ‘within the box’, and that we examine the implementation of the IB text bearing in mind that it was the result of a delicate compromise in 2006 that we should preserve it at all cost. Our objective should be to examine with an open mind, in an intergovernmental process that is informed by the contributions of all stakeholders, the state of implementation of its various sections with a view to upgrade our collective implementation of this important document. We discourage any line by line examination of the IB text, and we emphasize that this is no an exercise to rewrite it. In addition, the review should not hinder the carrying by the Council of its normal work and mandate.
2- Since the election of the new president of the Council is imminent, we would like to guard against imposing a straight jacket on him or her, and we believe that ideally the road map and modalities should be the subject of consultation between the current and the new president upon the election of the latter, and that the appointment of any facilitators ought to be left to the new president.
3- Any text that would result from the review should in our view be an interpretative document of the IB text, or at most a supplemental document of it and would incorporate only fine tuning of a limited number of elements agreed upon by consensus by all sides. This review should in our view include the UPR but any changes should take effect after the end of its first cycle.
4- We believe that our objective should be to complete the review by March 2011 with whatever remaining minor finalization to be undertaken by maximum the June 2011 session.
5- Finally, we would like to emphasize that the Russian non-paper could be a solid basis on which to build the modalities and road map for the review of the Council.

I thank you.