VZCZCXYZ0006
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHGV #2337/01 2650820
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 220820Z SEP 06
FM USMISSION GENEVA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 1090
INFO RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK 1599

UNCLAS GENEVA 002337 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PREL PHUM UNHRC
SUBJECT: UN HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL -- REQUEST FOR GUIDANCE ON 
REPLACING THE 1503 COMPLAINTS PROCEDURE 
 
 
¶1.  This is an action request.  See para 6. 
 
SUMMARY 
------- 
 
¶2.  Informals, led by Swiss Permanent Representative Blaise 
Godet, were held September 15 to continue discussions on 
replacing the existing 1503 human rights procedure with a new 
complaints procedure endorsed by the Human Rights Council. 
During the course of informals, several delegations appeared 
willing to cast aside the key limitations on the existing 
1503 procedure -- that the allegation be of a "consistent 
pattern of gross and reliably attested violations of 
fundamental human rights," and that domestic remedies be 
exhausted.  Questions also arose regarding the need to keep 
the procedure confidential versus opening it up to greater 
transparency to the complainants, as well as if/how it should 
be linked to Universal Periodic Review.  There does not 
appear to be any concerted opposition to a complaint 
procedure.  The difficulty will be reaching agreement on the 
form it should take and its modalities. 
 
ISSUES FOR DECISION RAISED BY FACILITATOR 
----------------------------------------- 
 
¶3.  Swiss Permrep Blaise Godet has been appointed the 
"facilitator" of an informal working group on the complaint 
procedure to be adopted by the Human Rights Council (HRC) to 
replace the ECOSOC-mandated 1503 procedure.  Godet referred 
several times to the mandate under UNGA Resolution 60/251 
creating the Council to "assume, review and, where necessary 
improve and rationalize" Commission mechanisms, including "to 
maintain . . . a complaint procedure."  The first meeting of 
the group, September 15, worked on the basis of a "checklist" 
prepared by Godet.  (Checklist was emailed to L, DRL, and 
IO.)  The checklist notes key characteristics of the current 
1503 procedure, such as that the allegations must state a 
"consistent pattern of gross and reliably attested violations 
of human rights and fundamental freedoms," universality, 
exhaustion of domestic remedies, and complementarity.  The 
checklist raises questions whether there should be more 
transparency vis-a-vis the Council and complainants, whether 
it should avoid overlap with other mechanisms, and how it 
should be linked (if at all) with the Universal Periodic 
Review (UPR).  It also raises questions about the type and 
number of bodies that should be involved, and their 
composition, whether individuals or groups can submit 
complaints, the number of steps in the procedure, and the 
powers and types of outcome for the procedure. 
 
REVIEW OF STATES' POSITIONS 
--------------------------- 
 
¶4.  The discussion on the paper heard many states calling for 
improvement of the current 1503 mechanism, but with most 
participants being unable to articulate how that might be 
accomplished.  Most criticisms of the current mechanism 
focused on its "politicization," though a number of 
delegations cautioned that the procedure works relatively 
well and should not be changed drastically. 
 
-- The EU wants greater transparency for the complainants, 
impartiality, and objectivity in the process.  It had not, 
however, agreed among its members on any specific points or 
recommendations. 
 
-- China asserted that the original purpose of 1503 was to 
address country situations first in a confidential way, but 
that it had evolved into a kind of individual complaints 
procedure.  At the same time, country situations eventually 
by-passed the 1503 process and went right to public airing in 
the Commission.  China would not tinker with the current 
structure and admissibility requirements, but would return 
the procedure to what China asserts is its original role as 
the gatekeeper for consideration of country situations in the 
public sessions of the Council.  Pakistan largely agreed. 
 
-- Russia said it had no strong interest in the 1503 
procedure, but given the mandate from the UNGA to maintain a 
complaints mechanism, supported keeping the existing 
procedure with few changes.  It called for better handling of 
communications by the Secretariat, including more Russian 
translators and better tracking of correspondence.  Russia 
underlined the importance of the confidentiality of the 
procedures, arguing that this is a unique aspect of 1503 
which allows states quietly to follow through with 
implementation. 
 
-- India, Japan, Colombia, Indonesia, the United States, and 
others also stated clearly that the admissibility 
requirements of the current procedure must be maintained in 
order to avoid a massive flood of complaints. Argentina, 
Chile, and Peru asserted, however, that such requirements 
were outmoded and created unfair obstacles to the ability of 
complainants to seek redress.  They would create a 
straight-forward individual complaints procedure with tough 
remedies, including compensation for violations.  In 
addition, the Czech Republic and Norway called into question 
the necessity of a requirement for a "consistent pattern of 
gross . . . violations," asserting that such a standard is 
political not legal and therefore is unnecessary for the 
Council to consider human rights violations. 
 
-- Several delegations complained that the OHCHR Secretariat 
had a record of losing 1503 complaints and that many 
applicants never learned the outcome of their submission. 
The Secretariat stated that it had improved its handling of 
the communications over the years, and had developed a system 
for minimizing overlap with other mechanisms.  To the extent 
that the same claim is filed through more than one procedure, 
the Secretariat now will only take it up in one.  According 
to the Secretariat duplicative filings have been reduced to 
less than 5 percent of the total. 
 
-- Peru and Argentina, with scattered support, argued that 
the political role of the Working Group on Situations should 
be abolished, with the entire process being turned over to 
the independent experts, who could meet year-round under the 
new Council structure, and make recommendations to the full 
Council.  Russia, China, Iran, India, and Japan maintained 
the crucial role the intergovernmental committee plays in 
vetting complaints before they get to the full Council. 
 
CONSULTATIONS TO CONTINUE 
------------------------- 
 
¶5.  Godet was unable to reconcile the various views, but 
stated that it was clear the existing 1503 procedure must be 
the basis for further discussions, and that delegations 
seemed to want to improve it where possible.  Peru maintained 
that one could not rule out other models as well.  Godet 
ended by stating that he would be in touch with delegations 
during the Council session and come back to the informal 
working group with a revised checklist. 
 
ACTION REQUEST 
-------------- 
 
¶6.  Department is requested to provide guidance to Mission on 
USG goals for a complaints mechanism in the Council, focusing 
first on the points in Godet's checklist.  What aspects of 
the 1503 procedure may be improved upon?  Which aspects must 
be maintained?  Department is also requested to provide some 
sense of how the complaints mechanism might relate to other 
mechanisms, including those of existing treaties and the 
nascent UPR. 
 
COMMENT 
------- 
 
¶7.  The Department and Mission devote considerable resources 
every year addressing mostly frivolous 1503 complaints 
against the United States.  The political nature of the 
Working Group on Situations has been a source of frustration 
when regional group balance resulted in cases being dismissed 
or forwarded to the Commission based on regional 
considerations rather than their merit.  Nonetheless, Mission 
believes that the 1503 procedure has been manageable while 
providing in several cases for the Commission to take action 
to address pressing human rights situations.  With that in 
mind, Mission Geneva would caution against opening it up to a 
revision that could result in either an unmanageable flood of 
communications or an overly restrictive system that would 
limit the Council's ability to address serious country 
situations. 
TICHENOR