The commission is not an institution; it's an event. It doesn't have a headquarters, an address, or even a permanent staff, although it has administrative support from the Geneva staff of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. The commission is a six-week annual meeting of 53 member states, held in Geneva every spring. For the last two years, the commission has also held a one-day meeting in September, just prior to the opening of the General Assembly session in New York.
What does the commission do?
The commission now passes about 60 resolutions during a session. Some deal generically with issues, and some target specific countries. The highest drama lies in the diplomatic legerdemain that countries undertake to avoid being the target of such resolutions, or at least to water down their texts. The language of a resolution may range from more mild formulations, such as "expressing concern," to tougher rhetoric such as "strongly condemning."
Probably the strongest possible action the commission can take is to establish a "special rapporteur" (or a "special representative," or an "independent expert") to investigate human rights violations in a particular country. It can also appoint special rapporteurs or experts to monitor specific types of violations that are occurring in more than one country, such as torture, extrajudicial executions, or lack of freedom of expression.
The commission may pass "chairman's statements," which are generally milder because they are negotiated with the target country and adopted by consensus.
The commission may initiate negotiations for a new human rights convention, such as the new Convention on "Disappearances," which was initiated last year.
How does a resolution get passed?
Any member state can bring forward a resolution. In practice, the members of the European Union introduce most resolutions dealing with specific countries. The United States has also introduced resolutions, but it will not be able to do so alone in 2002 because it was voted off the commission last year. Any state can co-sponsor resolutions with at least one member of the commission.
Resolutions must be tabled approximately three days before a vote, although deadlines tend to be lax. The members either reject a resolution, adopt it by majority vote, or adopt it by consensus. Delegates from countries with poor human rights records usually push to have resolutions adopted by consensus, because then they can water the text down in the name of maintaining that consensus.
How are the resolutions enforced?
They often are not. For example, two years ago a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council was criticized in a resolution for the first time: Russia, for its conduct in Chechnya. The commission has mandated for two years in a row that several special rapporteurs should visit Chechnya. But Russia has refused to let the rapporteurs in. A key question of this year's commission is what the members will do about this blatant defiance of its wishes.
What do the member states wrangle over?
The most interesting moments of the six weeks usually occur during the discussions on Item Nine of the agenda, when resolutions and rapporteurs' reports on individual countries are considered, and during Item Eleven, which is devoted to civil and political rights.
No country wants to have a special rapporteur assigned to investigate its human rights conditions. Currently about a dozen countries have special rapporteurs, whose mandates must each be renewed every year during the session. By contrast, the thematic rapporteurs are appointed for three-year terms and they may visit several countries during the year. There are now more than twenty thematic rapporteurs.
Who are the delegates to the commission?
They are diplomats. They may be sent from capitals, or from the U.N. in New York, or they may be representing their country in Geneva. The High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, is present throughout the session and usually makes several statements during the course of the commission. The chair this year is Poland.
Many states that are members of the commission have poor human rights records. Human Rights Watch advocates that as a prerequisite for membership, any commission member must issue a standing invitation to any and all special rapporteurs to investigate its domestic human rights conditions. More than 30 states have made such announcements of standing invitations, most recently Georgia, and several more are expected to do so during this year's session.
With so many abusive countries as members of the commission, and so many opportunities for cynical manipulation of human rights principles, why do non-governmental organizations bother attending the Geneva session at all?
It's true that human rights groups sometimes feel more disappointed than victorious by the end of the session. Yet over the last few years, several important victories have been scored, such as the establishment of a monitoring mechanism on human rights defenders who often risk their lives to monitor human rights in their countries.
Over the years, with its monitoring system of rapporteurs and other reports, the commission has developed a fairly good ability to monitor human rights conditions. Each session generally produces more than 100 reports, letters, and other forms of documentation. This catalogue of abuse can be very powerful, and it shows that the political price governments have to pay for committing human rights violations has gone up. Perhaps the most important measure of the commission's importance is how vigorously governments campaign to avoid being the target of a resolution.
At the heart of human rights work lies the ability to shame abusive governments, and the commission is a very important instrument of shame.
