<<previous  |  index  |  next>>

Review of Special Procedures

The system of special procedures is one of the most positive features that the HRC inherits from its predecessor, the Commission on Human Rights. These special procedures are the backbone of the nascent Council. There are currently over forty rapporteurs, representatives, experts, and working groups covering countries and thematic concerns such as torture, violence against women, arbitrary detention, and the right to health. Their role is to provide independent, expert advice to the HRC in dealing with human rights issues around the world. This includes seeking and receiving information on allegations of human rights violations, transmitting communications to relevant governments and seeking clarification on allegations, carrying out fact finding missions, responding to emergencies, providing legal analyses, and issuing country-specific and thematic recommendations.

Special procedures have made extremely important contributions over the years on both country-specific and thematic issues. Even the threat of the appointment of a country-specific rapporteur has sometimes encouraged states to make genuine efforts to improve their human rights records. The recommendations of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances are considered to have helped bring down the number of “disappearances” in Sri Lanka in the early 1990s. The Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement developed by the special representative of the secretary-general are applied as a standard by an increasing number of states, United Nations agencies and regional organizations. The Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions has succeeded in placing the issue of “honor killings” on the international agenda. In its Deliberation No.5, which was welcomed by a number of states, the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention established criteria for determining, in coordination with the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, whether or not the deprivation of liberty of asylum seekers and immigrants may be arbitrary

The review of the special procedures that is contemplated in the General Assembly resolution should be the occasion for a thorough stocktaking of individual mandates in order to identify possible overlaps, but it should also review the system as a whole and identify gaps in human rights issues currently covered by existing mandates with the view to filling them. The goal of the review should, of course, be to strengthen—not weaken—the system.

There is no set formula for rationalizing the HRC’s inherited ability to receive independent information on violations of human rights, to monitor ongoing crises and formulate concrete recommendations based on independent expert advice, to afford protection and remedies to victims, and to address non-compliance. During the year ahead, HRC members must be guided by protection needs and carve out the best international response the HRC can provide through a system of special procedures; in pursuing this task, the Council must look at issues of substance and not merely at numbers.

The following areas will be central to any effective review:

• An analysis of the roles and functions of the special procedures including the type of monitoring function the HRC decides it needs. A discussion on the rationale and objectives of the special procedure system as a whole will be important;
• Coordination among the special procedures including creation of an OHCHR clearing-point for all special procedures’ visits and invitations;
• Methods of work, including the need and limits of harmonization (bearing in mind the difference in nature of some mandates) and the need to issue concrete and measurable recommendations that are followed up by the HRC and by U.N. agencies in country;

• Member states’ cooperation with special procedures including follow up on standing invitations and response to communications;
• Ensuring follow-up of recommendations and reporting back to the HRC;
• Outreach to U.N. agencies and others on the ground to promote the implementation of recommendations, including where appropriate, training and capacity building;
• Mainstreaming of gender and age concerns into the work of all mandates as well as attention needed for the specific protection needs of groups such as non-citizens, minorities, persons with disabilities, and victims of violations motivated by sexual orientation;
• Resources required to allow for more research and analytical support to the special procedures;
• Reporting to the HRC and interaction with members and observers including nongovernmental organizations (“interactive dialogue”);
• Strengthening selection criteria and the selection process for mandate holders to emphasize independence, expertise, and demonstrated commitment to human rights.

Additionally, as this review takes place within an overall changing context, HRC members should reflect on special procedures’ coordination with other mechanisms of the international human rights system including the universal periodic review and the treaty monitoring bodies.

At the review, individual mandate holders should be invited to present the specificity of their mandate, list its essential elements, best practices, obstacles, and areas for improvements. An urgent first step should be to allocate resources to the Coordination Committee set up in 2005.