This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 GENEVA 002515 
 
SIPDIS 
 
IO/SHA, DRL/MLA, L/HRR 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PHUM UNCHR
SUBJECT: SEMINAR ON SPECIAL PROCEDURES OCTOBER 12 - 13, 2005 
 
------- 
SUMMARY 
-------- 
 
¶1.  On October 12-13, the Office of the High Commissioner for 
Human Rights hosted a seminar entitled "Enhancing and 
Strengthening the Effectiveness of the Special Procedures of 
the Commission on Human Rights."  The seminar was divided 
into four sections, each focusing on a specific aspect of the 
Special Procedures, and was well-attended by CHR country 
representatives, NGOs and several of the SP mandate-holders. 
Each of the four sections opened with a statement by a member 
state, NGO and Special Rapporteur.  With the exception of an 
inflammatory statement from the Cuban delegation, and the 
unfortunate fact that the OHCHR secretariat appointed Sudan 
to present the opening statement, the overall atmosphere was 
largely collegial and cooperative.  End Summary. 
 
--------------------------------------------- ---------- 
The Role and Functions of the Special Procedures System 
--------------------------------------------- ---------- 
 
¶2. There was general consensus among most speakers that the 
Special Procedures (SP) system is a vital function of the CHR 
and must be maintained and enhanced in the new Human Rights 
Council.  Few delegations addressed in any detail the need to 
rationalize and streamline the SPs.  The opening statement 
from Sudan called for universal CHR membership and demanded 
that SP mandate-holders focus on human rights violations by 
armed groups.  Russia opposed formal Human Rights Council 
(HRC) membership criteria, arguing that such criteria would 
be a violation of the "sovereign equality" foreseen in the UN 
Charter.  Amnesty International argued that the urgent action 
capability of the SPs would be of critical importance, both 
pre- and post-human rights violations.  Amnesty noted that it 
would be a double standard for any country to criticize 
others' cooperation with SPs, while refusing to cooperate 
itself.  Singapore noted that any change of the SPs under the 
new Council would be superficial unless the question of 
expanding mandates were addressed.  China, while noting that 
the SPs are the "eyes and ears" of the CHR, emphasized that 
this seminar was informal only, and therefore had no 
authority to make final decisions. It also demanded that all 
mandates be created by consensus, or, if that were not 
possible, than with two-thirds majority support of Council 
members.  The Chinese representative said he had been told by 
one mandate-holder that "if states are happy, then I'm not 
doing my job," and observed that a given state, not the 
Special Rapporteur, bears the responsibility for the 
promotion and protection of human rights.  Philip Alston, the 
chairman of the new Special Procedures Coordination 
Committee, noted that the Special Procedures branch had just 
agreed to update its Best Practices manual and release it 
publicly.  Alston called for the OHCHR website to be used 
more extensively, including to the extent of posting working 
drafts of the reports of Special Rapporteurs.  Alston 
believes that states that cooperate with SPs are effectively 
victimized, because of the scrutiny of a report and the 
public response, while non-cooperative states suffer no real 
consequences. 
 
---------------------------------- 
Working Methods of Mandate-Holders 
---------------------------------- 
 
¶3.  This discussion highlighted the coordination or lack 
thereof between Special Procedures and the role and functions 
of the new Coordination Committee.  Of keenest interest was 
the question of SP-state cooperation, the importance of 
country visits by SPs, and the need for impartiality and 
restrained use of the media by Special Rapporteurs.  Many 
states also argued that draft SP reports must be no longer 
than 20 pages or so, and must include concrete, realistic 
recommendations, listed in order of priority.  The report 
would be submitted to the state in question early enough to 
allow a formal reply from the state, which would then be 
incorporated into the final report.  Lively debate focused 
around the importance of states issuing standing invitations 
for mandate-holders to visit.  The UK, in its capacity as EU 
president, argued that SPs must hold regular meetings with 
states as a venue for further discussions.  The EU suggested 
that an updated manual of best practices and standard 
operating procedures would heighten the efficiency of special 
procedures.  Australia argued that the agreement to increase 
the regular budget of OHCHR should include a funding increase 
for mandate holders and their staffs.  Australia thought the 
establishment of an advisory panel on special procedures 
could be potentially useful.  Russia said that country visits 
were "the most important working method," but country visits 
must not be imposed upon reluctant countries. 
 
--------- 
Follow-up 
--------- 
 
¶4.  This session debated ways to strengthen follow-up to 
mandate-holders' activities.  There was general agreement 
with the idea that the method of presenting a 
mandate-holder's findings influences follow-up, but there 
were differing views as to whether a given state was largely 
responsible for follow-up, and what constituted a successful 
after-action.  Amnesty International argued that 
communications should remain pending until a mandate-holder 
decides that a government has answered satisfactorily.  A 
smaller NGO argued that the implementation of recommendations 
was the exclusive responsibility of states.  The EU position 
called for all states to submit information on their 
implementation of recommendations made to them.  Costa Rica 
argued for the publication of statistics on implementation by 
states of a report's recommendations.  Cuba's intervention 
drew a distinction between the two categories of SP: 
thematic ones, whose validity it acknowledges, and 
country-specific ones, which it considers illegitimate and 
the source of the politicization of the CHR.  By Cuba's 
lights, only thematic resolutions require follow-up by a 
country.  Russia highlighted that a SP recommendation is just 
that, a recommendation only, not sacred texts where rigid 
adherence will solve all problems noted.  Jean Ziegler, 
Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, used his 
intervention to attack the World Bank and IMF for their 
"decision to privatize water," with a direct impact on 
people's survival, and criticized the WTO for being "too busy 
to see me." 
 
--------------------------------------------- ----------------- 
Cooperation With and Support From the OHCHR, UN Specialized 
Agencies, NGOs, and National Institutions 
--------------------------------------------- ----------------- 
 
¶5.  The final session of the Special Procedures seminar 
discussed SP cooperation with the UN and other institutions. 
The discussion focused on the necessity that experts have 
subject area expertise and impartiality, and the need for 
trained, professional support staff.  UNHCR discussed the 
utility of SP interviews in determining refugee status, and 
the overlap between aspects of UNHCR's work in refugee 
protection and some aspects of SPs.  The EU called for 
increased cooperation between the SPs and the human rights 
treaty monitoring bodies.  The EU also called on all states 
to protect those cooperating with SPs from negative 
repercussions. 
 
 
---------------------- 
Text of U.S. Statement 
---------------------- 
 
¶6. PolCouns gave a statement during the final session in her 
capacity as delegation head.  Text follows below. 
 
Thank you, Madam Chairperson. 
 
I wish to confirm my government's strong support for the 
Special Procedures.  We see the reform process currently 
underway in the United Nations and the decision to establish 
a Human Rights Council as opportunities to review the 
existing mechanisms, with a view toward making the Special 
Procedures a more effective tool in the promotion and 
protection of human rights. 
 
In this regard, the United States believes that a thorough 
review of all existing mandates would be appropriate to 
determine their continued validity and applicability to 
current situations.  Such a review would allow the new Human 
Rights Council to maintain the best of the valuable work of 
the Special Procedures.  It should also eliminate duplication 
by consolidating work under the most appropriate mandate 
holder.  This would lessen the demand for scarce resources 
from OHCHR. 
 
My government believes that it is necessary to assure that 
adequate resources, including well-trained and professional 
staff, are allocated by OHCHR to support the work of the 
Special Procedures.  We encourage states to consider 
seriously the resource implications of creating new mandates 
or of continuing existing mandates. 
 
The United States encourages adherence to clear criteria for 
the selection of mandate holders, as have many other nations. 
 Emphasis should be placed on professional expertise and 
experience, independence and impartiality.  There should be 
no conflict of interest between a candidate's responsibility 
as a mandate holder and his or her professional commitments. 
Nominees must not hold government positions.  We support the 
recommendation that mandate holders be limited to six-year 
terms. 
 
The United States also welcomes and supports the numerous 
calls made during this session for enhancing the work of the 
Special Procedures through the formulation of Standard 
Operating Procedures and Best Practices.  Among the many 
elements to be included in such a document should be minimum 
general criteria for allegations to be considered by a 
mandate holder.  The criteria should include exhaustion of 
reasonable domestic remedies and a reasonable amount of 
documentary evidence. 
 
A number of delegations have highlighted the importance of 
communications between mandate holders and states.  In order 
to enhance the value of such communications, we believe 
communications should be forwarded only with the mandate 
holders' explicit knowledge and approval.  Letters should 
include a reasonable deadline, such as 60 days, for a 
response to a standard communication and less time as 
appropriate for urgent appeals.  They should also include as 
much information as possible.  Mandate holders should 
coordinate their communications, issuing joint communications 
where possible, to avoid duplication of efforts. 
 
To maintain their value, reports of the Special Procedures 
should be concise, comprehensive and focused ON the mandate 
of the relevant procedure.  They should also be made 
available to the concerned states before being made public. 
Comments or replies from the concerned states should be noted 
and accurately summarized. 
 
I would like to address one final issue that has been raised 
during these discussions -- the creation of an Advisory 
Panel.  The United States believes that the review of the 
current system, the formulation of Standard Procedures and 
Best Practices, and OHCHR's efforts to strengthen and improve 
the procedures would obviate the need for such a Panel.  We 
are also concerned that the creation of an additional body 
would add another layer of bureaucracy to the process and 
further burden OHCHR's resources. 
 
Thank you, Madam Chairperson. 
Moley