Human Rights Council, Fourth Session
March 15, 2007
Introduction of progress reports from the institution–building

Malaysia

Thank you, Mr. President.  We thank all the facilitators for their respective progress reports which underline the need for us to expedite our work in the three working groups to enable us to conclude our work of institution-building by the 18 of June of 2007.  Since we have just sight of the latest reports and proposals, we are making very preliminary and general comments on them at this stage.

First, we believe that a draft agenda by the facilitator can help advance our work.  A structured agenda should be adopted by the end of the second year of the Council.  As far as specific items of the agenda are concerned, we associate ourselves with the inclusion of items listed in the NAM and the Asian Group statements.

Second, on the Universal Periodic Review, we also believe that the non-paper by the facilitator is a good basis to move our work forward.  We underline that UPR is an intergovernmental process while other stakeholders could participate in the capacity as observers.  In this context, we also do not see any rule for experts or linkage to any other mechanism.  The basis of review should take into account national particularities.  The periodicity of review should be a five year cycle and the review should take place at the plenary of the Council.  The process and modalities of the review exercise should be manageable so as not to overburden states and the Council itself.  The outcome of the review should be a summary of the proceedings of the review process which may contain recommendations in full consultation with the state review.  It should operate as a cooperative mechanism for the sharing of best practices as well as promoting better understanding of the challenges confronting states in meeting their respective human rights obligations.  The emphasis should be collaboration and enhancing capacity-building at the request of states concerned and no punitive measures should be emphasized.

Third, we wish to seek clarity from the facilitator on the review of special procedures as to the basis for the format of his non-paper particularly on the status of the untitled first subsection.  Is it the facilitator’s intention to present this subsection as signifying elements of convergence?  If the answer is in the affirmative, then Malaysia will have to ask the question- On what basis some of these elements have been included in this subsection.  Paragraph 4, for instance, does not reflect the views of the majority.  Malaysia continues to maintain that mandate-holders should be elected by the Human Rights Council on the basis of nominations submitted by member states and other relevant stakeholders based on the principles of equitable geographical representation and the different legal and cultural systems.  Certainly nations should not be prescreened by an elected body where member states have no role.  I therefore, would like to seek clarification to the meaning of paragraph 40 in subsection 4 on cooperation with governments that states that unhindered access to and within countries upon invitation facilitates the exercise of mandates of special procedures.

We in Malaysia even the most senior officials do not have the right of unhindered access to all places or persons.  If access is qualified by the term “upon invitation” then the word “unhindered” is the wrong word to use in this context.

Fourth, on the proposal by the facilitator on the complaint procedure, we continue to maintain that the most effective domestic remedies is the court system.  On the composition of the first working group, it remains our position that experts should be selected from the expert body of the council based on geographical representation and that the mandates of the second working group submitted to the members of the first working group shall be subject to renewal for similar number of years.  And position of the second working group should be taken by simple majority and not by consensus of qualified majority where it relates to the admissibility or the dropping of a case. 

Fifth, paper on the expert advice represents views expressed but does not give any ___ to these views.  We believe that if this process is to move forward, we have to give due consideration to the first non-paper by the facilitator.  Thank you very much.