HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL REPORT CARD:

G OVERNMENT P OSITIONS
2007 2008

ON

K EY I SSUES

membership of the Human Rights Council: 2007-2008 Cycle

MEMBER

COUNTRY

MEMBER

COUNTRY

MEMBER

COUNTRY

Angola

Guatemala

Philippines

Azerbaijan

India

Qatar

Bangladesh

Indonesia

Republic of Korea

Bolivia

Italy

Romania

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Japan

Russia

Brazil

Jordan

Saudi Arabia

Cameroon

Madagascar

Senegal

Canada

Malaysia

Slovenia

China

Mali

South Africa

Cuba

Mauritius

Sri Lanka

Djibouti

Mexico

Switzerland

Egypt

Netherlands

Ukraine

France

Nicaragua

United Kingdom

Gabon

Nigeria

Uruguay

Germany

Pakistan

Zambia

Ghana

Peru

REGIONAL GROUPS
African Group (13 members)
Asian Group (13 members)
Eastern European Group (6 members)
Latin American and Caribbean States (GRULAC) (8 members)
Western European and Others Group (WEOG) (7 members)

OTHER CROSS-REGIONAL BLOCS

Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC)
(15 members on the Council)
European Union (EU) (7 members on the Council)
Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) (28 members on the Council)
Group of Arab States (5 members on the Council)

Dynamics of Regional Groups and Blocs

Regional groups form the basis for geographic representation on the Human Rights Council (the Council) through designated seats. The
membership of the Council consists of 13 member states from the African Group, 13 from the Asian Group, 6 from the Eastern European
Group, 8 from the Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC), and 7 from the Western European and Others Group (WEOG). These
seats are subject to annual elections held in May to fill one third of the 47-member body. The regional groups serve as the primary form of
political organization and negotiation centers at the Council. Several trends in these regional groups were noticeable over the 2007-2008 cycle,
including the African Groups policy of speaking as a group with little exception, and GRULAC and the Asian Group speaking collectively
only on occasion. In addition to these regional groups, there are several cross-regional blocs active at the Council that represent geopolitical alliances, including the European Union (EU), the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), the Group of Arab States, and the
Non-Aligned Movement (NAM). The OIC, with 15 members on the Council during the 2007-2008 cycle, carried more weight than any of
the single regional groupings. The OIC frequently spoke and voted as a group, and was joined in its positions on many issues by the African
Group, as well as Cuba and Nicaragua. The EU, with 7 members on the Council this cycle, almost always spoke and voted as a group. Canada, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Japan, the Republic of Korea, and Ukraine voted regularly with the EU. Slightly less active at the Council, the
NAM, with its 28 members on the Council, and the Group of Arab States with 5 members, occasionally spoke as a group on such topics such
as the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Throughout the cycle, select countries in GRULAC and non-OIC African and Asian states served as
swing states on a range of thematic and country-specific issues.

Officers of the human rights council: 2007-2008

President: Mr. Doru Romulus Costea (Romania)

Vice-Presidents: Mr. Mohamed-Siad Doualeh (Djibouti), Mr. Boudewijn van Eenennaam (Netherlands) & Mr. Dayan Jayatilleka (Sri Lanka)
Vice-President and Rapporteur: Mr. Alejandro Artucio (Uruguay)

Analysis of Government Positions on

Key Human Rights Issues 2007-2008
As part of its regular series of reports monitoring United Nations
human rights bodies, the Democracy Coalition Project (DCP)
undertook once again to provide an independent analysis of the
performance of states at the UN Human Rights Council (the
Council) during the Councils second year of work.
During the 2007-2008 year (also referred to as the second cycle), the
Council convened the Sixth, Seventh and Eighth regular sessions,
as well as the Fifth, Sixth and Seventh special sessions. During
this cycle, the Council focused on addressing country specific and
thematic human rights issues and launched the Universal Periodic
Review (UPR). It also started the process of review, rationalization,
and improvement of special procedures mandates, and selected and
or renewed the terms of mandate holders. In addition, the Council
deliberated on its working methods and procedures, including the
participation of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs).
Altogether, the Council adopted 128 resolutions and decisions, and
4 presidential statements, including 54 dealing with country-specific
situations.1 It renewed or established 35 special procedures mandates
and held two working groups to review the human rights records of
32 UN member states under the new UPR mechanism.

Methodology
DCP has selected a set of indicators from the debates and decisions
taken by the Council over the 2007-2008 cycle and tracked
government positions for them.2 They consist of key thematic,
country-specific, and procedural issues identified by DCP as key
indicators of a governments commitment to the promotion and
protection of human rights.
DCP did not track the positions of governments on all the decisions
and issues considered by the Council as some issues lacked
substantive debate among member states; some debates did not result
in any action or produce sufficient government positions to warrant
tracking; and on some resolutions and issues, DCP did not take
positions. In our analysis, we discuss what we believe were the most
significant debates of the second cycle even if positions for them were
not tracked.3
To establish the positions of governments on these issues, DCP
consulted the public record through available documentation and
1

Thirty-two of the 54 country-specific resolutions and decisions were UPR outcomes.

The indicators are highlighted in bold in this analysis.
DCPs analysis does not include a substantive discussion of the first 32 reviews of states under the
UPR. A separate assessment of the performance of governments in the UPR working groups is needed,
but was considered beyond the scope of this study.

webcasts provided on the Human Rights Council webpage and

through summaries of debates provided by the Council Monitor
published by the International Service for Human Rights. Based on
this information, each country was evaluated against a preferred
position, which was considered the best option for the protection and
promotion of human rights, and marked with a
,
, or
in the
accompanying table on page 12-13.
During this years debates, governments continued to speak on
behalf of regional, cross-regional, or geopolitical groupings of
states. In these cases, members of groups were assumed to support
the group opinion unless they specifically expressed an alternative
view. In cases of special sessions, governments were credited for
supporting a session only if they did so individually. Similarly the
positions of observer states were tracked only in cases where they
spoke out individually on an issue; unlike members, observers were
not automatically credited with the positions of groups to which
they belong.4 It should also be noted that many consultations were
conducted behind closed doors; in these circumstances, it was difficult
to ascertain the role played by many states. Analyzing the public
statements and votes of governments was judged to be the most
accurate way to hold governments accountable in a uniform manner.

Thematic issues

Freedom of Opinion and Expression

The Human Rights Council addressed a variety of thematic issues
during the second cycle. Among them was a dramatic debate during
the Seventh session on the renewal of the mandate of the Special
Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of Freedom of Opinion and
Expression. Originally intended to be a procedural resolution, the
debate became divisive when some states favored altering the scope of
the mandate to include reporting on abuses of freedom of expression
as well as violations of this right.
Citing recent caricatures and documentaries insulting Islam, Pakistan
on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC)5
introduced an amendment calling for the mandate holder to
report on instances in which the abuse of the right of freedom of
expression constitutes an act of racial or religious discrimination.
A cross-regional group of states opposed the amendment, arguing
that the issue of religious and racial discrimination belonged under
other special procedures and that the mandate on freedom of
expression was intended to protect and promote that specific right,
not police it. Nonetheless, the amendment was approved by 27 votes
in favor, 17 against, and three abstentions.6
4
Observer states can actively participate in the Council through oral statements, interventions, and
sponsoring resolutions; but observers cannot vote.
5
Pakistan was supported by Egypt (on behalf of the African Group) and Palestine (on behalf of the
Group of Arab States).
6
Its core support came from the OIC and the African Group, as well as Russia, Cuba, the Philippines,
Sri Lanka, China, and Nicaragua. The European Union (EU), Bosnia and Herzegovina, India, Brazil,
Guatemala, Canada, Mexico, Switzerland, Peru, Ukraine, and Uruguay opposed the amendment.

This event caused the majority of the co-sponsors of the original

resolution to withdraw their co-sponsorship, after which Cuba offered
to sponsor the resolution and introduced a second oral amendment.
The amendment cited the importance for all forms of media to
report and to deliver information in a fair and impartial manner.
Despite protests by Canada on procedural grounds,7 the amendment
was adopted by a vote of 29 in favor, 15 against, and three abstentions
with only a handful of governments taking different positions on the
two amendments.8 Subsequent attempts by Slovenia (on behalf of
the EU) to suspend the meeting were rejected by Council President
Doru Romulus Costea. The amended resolution was finally adopted
by a vote of 32 in favor and 15 abstentions.9 Many of the original cosponsors abstained from the vote, but stated that they supported the
mandate on freedom of opinion and expression in principle.
that would guarantee the fundamental right to change ones religion
or belief, preferring language that urged respect for norms about the
Religious Discrimination and
right to change ones religion. This fundamental point caused the
Defamation of Religion
OIC to abstain from the final resolution, Elimination of all forms of
intolerance and of discrimination based on religion or belief.
The issue of religion and religious discrimination, featured in three
additional resolutions during this cycle, led to a clear divide among
The issue continues to be hotly debated at the Council. At the start
member states and raised growing concerns in the human rights
of the third cycle, many stakeholders called for a shift in the debate
community about the concept of defamation of religion used by
from the problematic framework of defamation of religion to a
members of the OIC. The fundamental differences among states
discussion of the legal limitations of freedom of expression under
on this issue were reflected in debates during the Sixth and Seventh
Articles 19 and 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and
sessions on the EU-sponsored resolution on the Elimination of
Political Rights (ICCPR).
all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based on religion or
belief,10 the OIC-sponsored resolution on Combating defamation
Good Governance
of religion,11 and the African Group-sponsored12 resolution on the
Mandate of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of
Also during the Seventh session of the Council, a resolution on
racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.13
The role of good governance in the promotion and protection
The divergence was based on the desire of OIC states to see specific
of human rights was introduced by Poland on behalf of 60 coreferences to defamation, discrimination, incitement to hatred, and
sponsors representing all regions. The resolution underscored the
stereotyping based on religion - specifically Islamophobia - in the
importance of the promotion of good governance in the advancement
aforementioned resolutions. In all of these debates, the OIC called
of human rights. It highlighted the positive role of the Community
for dialogue among cultures and respect for religions and beliefs
of Democracies and the UN sponsored International Conference
while the EU emphasized its support for tolerance, freedom of
of New or Restored Democracies and requested the Office of the
expression, and freedom of religion and belief. In addition, the EU
High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) to prepare a
pointed to the fact that international law protects freedom of religion report on anti-corruption. Cuba and Russia objected to references to
or belief, not religions or beliefs, per se, and therefore the concept
the Community of Democracies in two sections of the resolution,
of defamation of religion was inconsistent with human rights
describing the organization as politicized and imposed by the United
discourse. The OIC, on the other hand, refused to endorse language
States. The Council overwhelmingly rejected a package vote called
Canada objected citing rule 120 of the Councils rules of procedure that all amendments must be
tabled 24 hours in advance, but the President of the Council decided to accept the Cuban amendment.
Only a few governments took different positions on the second amendment on media reporting. India
voted in favor; Japan and the Republic of Korea voted against; Guatemala, the Philippines and Peru
abstained.
9
Abstaining on the vote on A/HRC/RES/7/36 were the EU, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada,
Guatemala, Japan, the Philippines, the Republic of Korea, Switzerland and Ukraine.
10
The resolution, A/HRC/RES/6/37, renewing the mandate was adopted during the Sixth session by
29 votes in favor and 18 abstentions a departure from past years when the mandate was adopted by
consensus. All OIC states, as well as China, South Africa, and Sri Lanka abstained.
11
The resolution, A/HRC/RES/7/19, was adopted during the Seventh session by a vote of 21 in favor,
10 against and 14 abstentions. All OIC states (with the exception of Gabon), China, Cuba, Nicaragua,
the Philippines, Russia, South Africa, and Sri Lanka voted in favor. All EU states voted against the
resolution. Latin American member states (with the exception of Cuba and Nicaragua), Gabon, Ghana,
India, Japan, Madagascar, Mauritius, the Republic of Korea, and Zambia abstained. Angola and Bosnia
and Herzegovina were absent.
12
This resolution was also co-sponsored by Bolivia and Cuba.
13
The resolution, A/HRC/RES/7/35, renewing the mandate was adopted during the Seventh session
without a vote.
7

by Cuba to remove these references14; the subsequent vote on the

original resolution was adopted by 41 in favor and six abstentions.15

Human Rights Defenders

The mandate of the Special Representative of the Secretary General on
human rights defenders16 was renewed by consensus during the Seventh
session. The consensus reached, however, was not without earlier
significant disagreement among states regarding the strength and
scope of the mandate. During the negotiations, Egypt proposed that
the mandate should elaborate on a definition for the term human
rights defender, examine the trends and concerns in relation to
defenders work, and promote the independence and impartiality of
defenders from undue influence, including as a result of funding.17
These proposals were strongly opposed by many states,18 as well as
the human rights community, which were concerned that this would
weaken the mandate and contradict Article 13 of the Declaration on
Human Rights Defenders19 that protects the right to access funding.
Ireland, on the other hand, proposed to expand the mandate to
report on the situation of defenders at particular risk, including those
working in areas of conflict.20 A related issue debated by states was
whether the title of the mandate on human rights defenders should
remain Special Representative to the Secretary-General or whether
it should be changed to Special Rapporteur. Some states such as
Russia, China, and India favored changing the title, arguing that it
was in line with streamlining and rationalizing the special procedures
under the new appointment procedure. States opposing the change
in the title the EU, members of the Western European and Others
Only five states voted in favor of removing the references: China, Cuba, Russia, Nicaragua and Sri
Lanka.
Resolution A/HRC/RES/7/11 was supported by all of the member states of the EU, the African
Group, and the OIC, in addition to Switzerland, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Canada, Guatemala,
India, Japan, Mexico, Peru, the Philippines, the Republic of Korea, and Uruguay. Russia, Bolivia,
Cuba, Nicaragua, China, and Sri Lanka abstained from the vote.
16
A/HRC/RES/7/8
17
The following states supported one or more of these proposals: Iran, Algeria, Bhutan, China, South
Africa, Russia, Bangladesh, Philippines, and Sri Lanka.
18
The following states opposed one or more of these proposals: Ireland, Australia, Belgium, United
States, United Kingdom, Israel, Switzerland, Norway, Mexico, and France.
19
Formally known as the Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of
Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognised Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
20
Irelands proposal was supported by Liechtenstein, Australia, Belgium, and the United Kingdom, and
opposed by Russia, China, and Iran.
14
15

Group (WEOG), Mexico and Ecuador - argued that it ensured access

to relevant parts of the UN system, reflected the cross-cutting nature
of the mandate, and helped protect human rights defenders. In the
end, a compromise was reached to replace the original text with
Special Rapporteur and discard with the remaining proposals.

Business and Human Rights

Some of the same states,21 which favored weakening the mandate
on the situation of human rights defenders, argued in favor of
strengthening the mandate on the Special Representative of the Secretary
General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations
and other business enterprises. The mandate, which was renewed by
consensus during the Eighth session,22 expanded the scope of the
original mandate toward the elaboration of an international legal
framework.
In his annual report, the Special Representative of the SecretaryGeneral, Mr. John Ruggie, identified a three-pillar conceptual
framework that included the States duty to protect against human
rights abuses by third parties, including businesses; the corporate
responsibility to respect human rights; and the need for more
effective access to remedies. The ensuing debate divided states into
three categories based on their views on the pace and character
by which the work of the mandate should be expanded. The five
cross-regional co-sponsors, Argentina, India, Nigeria, Russia, and
Norway23 favored expanding the scope of the mandate toward
elaborating and operationalizing a normative framework through
Nigeria, India, Russia, and Egypt supported proposals to limit the scope of the mandate on human
rights defenders and expanded the scope of the mandate on transnational corporations and other
business enterprises.
22
A/HRC/RES/8/7
23
Norway replaced the United Kingdom as an original co-sponsor of the mandate due to the United
Kingdoms lack of support for the development of a legal framework on corporate responsibility with
regard to human rights.
21

concrete recommendations. On the other hand, the United Kingdom

and Slovenia (on behalf of the EU) argued that there should be
no rapid move to operationalize the conceptual framework and no
fundamental shift in international law from the duty of states to
protect against human rights abuses. Other states, including Cuba,
South Africa, Belgium, Pakistan, and Egypt, took an even more
progressive position than the co-sponsors of the mandate; they
favored the expansion of the mandate toward the establishment of
a normative and enforceable framework that is specifically inclusive
of corporate responsibilities. Human rights, development, and
environmental organizations called for the mandate to provide for an
explicit capacity to examine situations of corporate abuse as a way
to help identify policy solutions. The final resolution renewing the
mandate was adopted by consensus and reflected the middle-ground
position held by the co-sponsors. After the adoption, the EU restated
its firm view that only states have obligations under international
law. South Africa, which had argued for the need for a complaints
mechanism, disassociated itself from the final consensus stating that
the resolution did not go far enough.

Optional Protocol to the International

Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural
Rights
During the Eighth session, the Council also adopted by consensus
a resolution on the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant
on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR),24 recommending
that the General Assembly adopt and open for signature and
ratification the Optional Protocol in March 2009. The Optional
Protocol provides for a complaint procedure for individuals or groups
claiming to be victims of a violation of any of the economic, social
and cultural rights in the ICESCR. Prior to its adoption, states were
bitterly divided over whether Part I of the ICESCR dealing with
self-determination should be included in the Optional Protocol.
In particular, Syria, Egypt, Pakistan, Algeria, and Palestine objected
to the Working Group text that excluded Part I, arguing that selfdetermination was well entrenched in international law and must be
included as a basis for complaints. Other states, including the United
Kingdom, Canada, Denmark, and Australia argued that the text
should not be reopened as it reflected a delicate compromise resulting
from years of negotiations.
The United Kingdom argued that common Article 1 of the ICESCR
dealt with rights conferred upon peoples, as such rather than a
right conferred upon individuals; consequently, individuals could not
claim to be the victim of a violation of the right to self-determination.

A/HRC/RES/8/2

24

The United Kingdom further argued that the progressively realizable

nature of economic, social and cultural rights do not lend themselves
to third party adjudication in the same way as civil and political
rights. Many other states countered that the Optional Protocol
should not draw a distinction between rights.25 The resolution was
eventually amended to cover all sections of the ICESCR. After its
adoption, Canada and the United Kingdom alluded to the possibility
of not becoming parties to the Protocol. Several states stressed
that their interpretation of the Protocol did not include the right to
self-determination under a future complaints mechanism.26 High
Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour and many human
rights organizations praised the passing of the Optional Protocol as a
historic moment.

The Right to Food

On May 22, 2008, the Council held its first special session on a
thematic issue, The negative impact on the realization of the
right to food for the worsening of the world food crisis, caused
inter alia by the soaring food prices. The groundbreaking session,
sponsored by Cuba (on behalf of NAM)27 drew broad cross-regional
support from 41 of 47 members of the Council, as well as 41 observer
states. The only Council members that did not sign the letter calling
for the session were Azerbaijan, Canada, Cameroon, Madagascar,
the Netherlands, and the Republic of Korea. The final resolution,
co-sponsored by 28 members of the Council and 50 observer states,
was adopted by consensus. The resolution called for the broad
participation of stakeholders in the High-level Meeting on World Food
Security and the Challenges of Climate Change and Bioenergy held by the
Food and Agriculture Organization in June 2008. It emphasized
that it was the primary obligation of states to make their best efforts
to meet the vital food needs of their population while also calling
for international cooperation. While the practical elements of the
sessions outcome were limited, the broad support for it among states
reflected an increased focus by the Council on economic, social, and
cultural rights.

Addressing Human Rights Situations

Darfur and Sudan

Lengthy negotiations between the EU and the African Group during

the Sixth session of the Council in September and December led to
a compromise to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the
human rights situation in the Sudan, but allowed the mandate on the
Group of Experts on the situation of human rights in Darfur to expire.28
The resolution on the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the

Pakistan, Brazil, Bangladesh.

The United Kingdom, Turkey, Canada, Australia, and Switzerland.
Cuba was supported by Egypt (on behalf of the African Group), Pakistan (on behalf of the OIC), and
Palestine (on behalf of the Group of Arab States).
28
The Group of Experts on the situation of human rights in Darfur, comprised of six thematic experts
and presided over by the Special Rapporteur on the Sudan, Sima Samar, was established by the Council
in March 2007 to foster the implementation of the body of recommendations by UN human rights
institutions and mechanisms.
25
26
27

situation in the Sudan,29 submitted by Egypt (on behalf of the African

Group) and adopted by consensus, instructed the Special Rapporteur
to continue to work along the terms of reference established in
2005 and to ensure effective follow up to the recommendations of
the Group of Experts on the situation in Darfur. This outcome was
opposed by the human rights community, which argued the need

consensus resolution33 which strongly deplores the continued violent

repression of peaceful demonstrations and dispatched the Special
Rapporteur to visit the country and report back to the Council.
Notably, the resolution also called for the release of all political
detainees in Myanmar, including pro-democracy leader Aung San
Suu Kyi. During the special session, Myanmar, as the concerned
country, stressed that the Council must not repeat the
mistakes of the Human Rights Commission in naming
and shaming weak countries.

Democratic Republic of the Congo

for both mandates to be extended, specifically so that the Group

of Experts could finish its assessment through June 2008. Only 12
Council members supported the position taken by the human rights
community, including the EU, Canada, Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Ukraine, the Republic of Korea, and Switzerland. The African Group
and the OIC opposed renewing the Group of Experts mandate;
Latin American countries, with the exception of Cuba, took no
position.30 The conditions of the final compromise were believed by
many close to the negotiations as the price for retaining the mandate
on the Sudan given the opposition of the African Group to country
mandates; however, the outcome raised questions about the merits of
a consensual approach to the Councils work.31

Myanmar
On October 2, 2007, the Human Rights Council convened a special
session in response to the human rights crisis in Myanmar after
authorities responded with violence toward Buddhist monks and
Burmese citizens protesting high fuel prices. Portugal (on behalf of
the EU) sponsored the session, which received cross-regional support
from 17 member and 36 observer states. In addition to the EU, Bosnia
and Herzegovina, Canada, Switzerland, Japan, Guatemala, Mexico,
Peru, the Republic of Korea, and Uruguay supported the special
session. Brazil signed on in support only after the session was called.32
Conspicuously, no African or OIC member of the Council supported
the session. Nonetheless, the robust debate led to the adoption of a

A/HRC/RES/6/34
Cuba aligned itself with the statement made by the African Group.
The mandates of Liberia and Somalia were renewed because of the governments support for their
extension.
32
For this reason, Brazil was given a yellow mark for this indicator in the accompanying chart.

Negotiations on the mandate of the Independent Expert

on the situation of human rights in the Democratic Republic
of the Congo began during the Sixth session in September,
but action on the review was deferred at the request of
Egypt (on behalf of the African Group). During the
Seventh session in March, the Council finally decided
against extending the mandate despite protests from the
human rights community. Egypt led the negotiations
based on the African Groups position of principle that country
mandates that do not enjoy the support of the government in question
should not be renewed. The government of the Democratic Republic
of the Congo (DRC) echoed the Egyptian-led group position that the
mandate could no longer contribute to improvements of the human
rights situation on the ground. Instead, a resolution, Technical
cooperation and advisory services in the Democratic Republic of
the Congo,34 providing for technical assistance and cooperation
between the DRC, OHCHR, and special procedures, was adopted
by consensus. While the EU, Canada and Switzerland supported the
consensus, they stated that the mandate should have been renewed
to assure follow-up and to address ongoing human rights violations.
This episode, along with another weak consensus resolution on
Darfur adopted during the same session,35 raised serious concerns
within the human rights community that the Council was choosing
consensus at the expense of victims of human rights violations.

Occupied Palestinian Territory

The human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory
(OPT) continued to be a focus of the Councils work, especially
during the last half of the second cycle in 2008.36 The Sixth special
session, on Human rights violations emanating from Israeli
military attacks and incursions in the Occupied Palestinian Territory,
including the recent ones in occupied Gaza and West Bank town
of Nablus, was held on January 23-24 in response to a flaring up

A/HRC/RES/S-5/1
A/HRC/RES/7/20
A consensus resolution, Situation of human rights in the Sudan (A/HRC/RES/7/16), adopted
by the Council on March 27, was so shockingly watered down as a result of negotiations between the
EU and the African Group that it failed to hold the government of the Sudan accountable for ignoring
Security Council resolutions and its role in continued human rights violations.
36
The issue of human rights in the OPT is addressed through a permanent agenda item on the Councils
agenda Item 7: Human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab Territories.

29

33

30

34

31

35

of the conflict and resulting human rights and humanitarian crisis

in the OPT. The session, sponsored by Pakistan (on behalf of
the OIC) and Syria (on behalf of the Group of Arab States), was
supported by 21 countries.37 The final resolution,38 adopted by a vote
of 30 in favor, one vote against, and 15 abstentions, called for
urgent international action to put an immediate end to the grave
violations committed by the occupying Power, Israel, in the Occupied
Palestinian Territory and urged all parties concerned to respect
the rules of human rights law and international humanitarian law
and to refrain from violence against the civilian population. The
EU abstained from the vote citing concerns that the text failed
to encompass the full spectrum of human rights violations and
responsibilities by both sides in the conflict. Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Cameroon, Ghana, Guatemala, the Republic of Korea, Switzerland,
Japan, and Ukraine also abstained from the vote. Canada was the
only country to vote against the resolution.
In March, renewed military incursions and rocket attacks by Israelis
and Palestinians led to another resolution during the Seventh session,
Human rights violations emanating from Israeli military attacks
and incursions in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, particularly
the recent ones in the occupied Gaza Strip,39 which condemned
Israeli military attacks against Palestinian civilians, and called for
the immediate cessation of all Israeli military attacks throughout
the Occupied Palestinian Territory and the firing of crude rockets by
Palestinian combatants. The resolution, adopted by a vote of 33 in
favor, one against and 13 abstentions,40 was significant because of its
more specific reference to Palestinian, as well as Israeli violations.
The language, which was the result of negotiations between the
EU, Palestinian representatives, and the OIC, did not go far enough
in satisfying the concerns of the EU, which called for a vote but
ultimately abstained.
A second resolution during the Seventh session, Israeli settlements
in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem,
and in the occupied Syrian Golan41 was approved by all Council
members with the sole exception of Canada. The resolution
expressed grave concern at the continuing construction of the wall
inside the OPT in contravention of international law, recalled both
parties obligations under the roadmap to a permanent two-State
solution to the conflict, urged full implementation of the Access and
Movement Agreement of November 15, 2005 and implementation of
the recommendations of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

to include violations by
both sides in the conflict.
It has yet to be seen if
this proposal will attract
support among member
states of the Council.

Democratic
Peoples Republic
of Korea
During the Seventh session,
the Council adopted a
resolution, Situation
of human rights in the
Democratic Peoples
Republic of Korea,42
submitted by Slovenia (on
behalf of the EU) and
Japan, which extended the
mandate of the Special
Rapporteur for one year.
The largely procedural resolution drew the usual sharp criticism
from the government of the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea
(DPRK). Several states, including Cuba, Indonesia, the Philippines,
and China argued that the mandate was politicized and ineffective
and that the UPR is the more appropriate mechanism for considering
the human rights situation in the DPRK. Nevertheless, the mandate
was adopted by a vote of 22 in favor, seven against, and 18
abstentions. The high number of abstentions reflects the uncertainty
of the Council about the future of country mandates, primarily
those that do not enjoy the support of the state in question. The EU,
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Ukraine, Switzerland, Canada, Japan, the
Republic of Korea, and the majority of Latin American states, with
the exception of Nicaragua, Cuba, and Guatemala, supported the
extension of the mandate. The majority of African and OIC countries
abstained from the vote; notable exceptions were Ghana, Madagascar,
Saudi Arabia, and Jordan, which supported the resolution. The seven
states that voted against the extension of the mandate were China,
Cuba, Egypt, Indonesia, Malaysia, Nicaragua, and the Russian
Federation. Egypt was the only African country to stand by the African
groups stated position against country mandates when it voted against
the resolution.

Continued criticisms of the Council for an unbalanced and extensive

focus on the situation in the OPT led the new Special Rapportuer
on the OPT, Richard Falk, to call for an expansion of the mandate
Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Nigeria, Indonesia, Egypt, Jordan, Qatar, Malaysia, Bangladesh, Azerbaijan,
Sri Lanka, Cuba, Djibouti, China, Nicaragua, Russia, South Africa, Bolivia, Uruguay, Brazil, and India.
A/HRC/RES/S-6/1
39
A/HRC/RES/7/1
40
The OIC and the majority of Asian, African, and Latin American members supported the resolution.
The EU abstained and was joined by Cameroon, Guatemala, Japan, the Republic of Korea, and
Ukraine. Canada was the sole vote against.
41
A/HRC/RES/7/18
37
38

A/HRC/RES/7/15

42

Working Methods and

Procedures
Country Scrutiny

During this cycle, several alarming trends

with regard to the Councils working
methods and procedures were evident.
They included efforts to undermine
country scrutiny, restrict and censor NGOs,
and infringe upon the independence of the
special procedures and the Office of the
High Commissioner for Human Rights. By
the end of the first cycle, the Council had
reaffirmed the decision to maintain country
mandates despite opposition from many
states. However, in the second cycle, states
remained divided on the issue of country
scrutiny. Members of the EU and WEOG
remained vocal that the Council must
address human rights violations wherever
they may occur, while members of the
Asian Group, members of the African
Group, and Cuba argued that the general debate on Human rights
situations that require the Councils attention was politicized and
used for naming and shaming.
In practice, few states other than those within the EU and WEOG43
raised country specific situations during the general debate leading
to concerns that silence by opposing groups and the resulting
imbalance in participation could be aimed at reinforcing the claims
of politicization. Interestingly, Iran appeared to have switched its
position on country scrutiny, stating in the Sixth session that member
states should not submit to the selectivity and politicization exercised
by the so-called champions of human rights; then, in the Seventh
session, Iran spoke under the general debate on the human rights
situations in many EU countries, Canada, and the United States.

Participation of Nongovernmental
Organizations
An additional area of concern at the Council was the upward trend
towards limiting the participation of NGOs by member states
through restrictive interpretations of the Councils modalities.44 This
became apparent during discussions surrounding the UPR as well as
discussions under the Follow-up and implementation of the Vienna
Declaration and Programme of Action.
Exceptions to this were Bosnia and Herzegovina, Japan, Albania, Croatia, Georgia, Iran, Macedonia,
and Pakistan.
The indicator titled Favored a broad interpretation of the participation of NGOs in the UPR outcome debate
reflects government positions expressed during the review of the UPR outcome reports at the Eighth
session in June. A country was given a green mark if they argued for a broader interpretation of NGO
participation. Countries receiving a red mark argued for a narrower interpretation of NGO participation.
Countries given a yellow mark were silent during this debate.

At a May 19, 2008 organizational meeting held ahead of the Eighth

session, Pakistan (on behalf of the OIC) and Bangladesh argued to
limit the participation of NGOs during the consideration of the UPR
Working Group reports to only 10 minutes out of the 60 minutes
allocated for each state under review. Slovenia (on behalf of the EU),
along with Switzerland and Canada, proposed 30 minutes, arguing
that NGO participation was essential to the work of the Council and
the UPR. A late compromise was eventually reached to allocate 20
minutes to NGO participation.
During the Eighth sessions review of the UPR working group
reports, a group of states attempted to censor NGO discussion of
the human rights situation in countries that had undergone review.
Egypt, supported by Algeria and Pakistan, argued that the guidelines
for NGO participation in this phase of the UPR did not provide for
re-opening discussions of the human rights situation that had already
taken place in the working groups, but that NGO comments must
be limited to the content of the outcome documents. Other member
states, including Canada, France, Germany, Mexico, Slovenia,
and the United Kingdom challenged this narrow interpretation of
the UPR modalities. Interestingly, the objections by Egypt and its
allies were mainly limited to the reviews of OIC states, including
Bahrain, Algeria, Morocco, Pakistan, and Indonesia. After the first
intervention of this kind during the review of Bahrain, President
Costea clarified that Resolution 5/1 setting out the institutional
modalities of the Human Rights Council stated that NGOs
were permitted to make general comments. Unfortunately, the
Presidents clarification did not settle the debate and NGOs continued
to be interrupted by states, in particular Egypt. Despite Egypts
repeated attempts to censor the NGOs, many States under review
welcomed NGO comments and responded accordingly to them.45
During the same sessions general debate on the Follow-up and
implementation of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of
Action,46 the statement of an NGO was interrupted by a point
of order from Egypt, which argued that the subject of Sharia law
could not be discussed at the Council. After Slovenia challenged
this position, stating that the issue was under the purview of the
agenda item, Egypt threatened to call for a vote before the statement
could be read. After suspending the meeting for consultations, the
President stated that the Council was not prepared to discuss religious
matters in depth. The President then gave the floor back to the NGO
instructing it to refrain from passing judgment on a particular set of
legislation.
At the Seventh session of the Council, both states and NGOs alike,
having failed to garner support for a special session on the human
Ecuador urged other governments to learn from its review and prepare reports with more lead time in
order to increase the participation of civil society.
The Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action (VDPA) was adopted by consensus at the World
Conference on Human Rights in 1993. The VDPA reaffirms human rights principles and seeks to
strengthen implementation of human rights around the world.

43

45

44

46

rights crisis in Tibet, raised the issue during the general debate
under discussion on the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action.
China supported by several states moved aggressively to silence
the discussion by raising 12 points of order and arguing that country
specific situations belonged under the agenda item Human rights
situations that require the Councils attention.47 Slovenia (on
behalf of the EU) and Switzerland stressed that it was necessary
to cite progress made in implementing commitments, which could
include references to specific situations. President Costea clarified
that implementation of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of
Action takes place on the ground and not in a vacuum; therefore,
references to specific country situations can be made as they relate to
implementation of the Declaration, but country situations should not
be the primary focus of the statement.

Independence of OHCHR
A recurring issue from the first cycle of the Council related to the
strengthening of OHCHR and its relationship to the Council.
A resolution submitted during the Seventh session by Cuba,48
Composition of the staff of the Office of the United Nations High
Commissioner for Human Rights,49 raised concerns within the
human rights community that states may be working to undermine
the independence of OHCHR. The resolution, adopted by a vote of
34 in favor, 10 against, and three abstentions, encouraged the General
Assembly to consider additional measures for the promotion of
geographical balance representing national and regional specificities,
various historic, cultural, and religious backgrounds, as well as the
diversity of political, economic and legal systems. Slovenia (on
behalf of the EU) and Canada opposed the resolution stating that
the Council was not the appropriate body to address these issues
and was duplicating efforts already underway by the OHCHR and
other bodies.50 The Republic of Korea and Switzerland noted that
the resolution had a negative tone and impact and interfered with the
work of OHCHR; therefore, both abstained from the vote along with
Japan. All members of the African Group, the OIC, and GRULAC
supported the resolution, as well as Asian states with the exception
of the Republic of Korea and Japan. The issue re-emerged during
the Eighth session when several states called for a formal discussion
of OHCHRs 2009-2010 strategic framework.51 The Netherlands and
Ireland rejected the view that the Council should have any oversight
over OHCHR. By the start of the third cycle, states remained split on
this issue leading the new President of the Council Martin Ihoeghian
Uhomoibhi to appoint Moroccan Ambassador Mohammed Loulichki
to facilitate further consultations.
Interestingly, during the Sixth session, China stated that there were too many human rights situations
requiring the Councils attention to be covered under Human rights situations that require the Councils
attention,, so they urged states to address broad situations such as children dying of curable diseases,
rights of indigenous people, and poverty in the global south.
48
The following countries joined Cuba in sponsoring the resolution: Belarus, Bolivia, Cuba, Democratic
Republic of Korea, Ecuador, Iran, Libyan Arab Jamahariya, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Syrian Arab
Republic, Uruguay, and Zimbabwe.
49
A/HRC/RES/7/2
50
Bosnia and Herzegovina and Ukraine also opposed the resolution.
51
Malaysia, Philippines, Algeria, and Uzbekistan.
47

10

Independence of the Special Procedures

Several states also took the opportunity of the ongoing review,
rationalization, and improvement of special procedure mandates
to question the working methods of mandate holders and their
compliance with the Code of Conduct.52 In particular, the reviews
of the mandates of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or
arbitrary executions and the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment were used by several
states to disapprove of the working methods of the two current
rapporteurs, Philip Alston and Manfred Nowak. Alston was sharply
criticized by several states, which called into question his sources of
information, presentation style, and understanding of the terms of
reference of his mandate.53 Nowak experienced similar treatment
by the Council when states accused the rapporteur of violating the
Code of Conduct.54 India and Russia suggested the Council consider
replacing the mandate holders. Both mandates were eventually
renewed without reference to the mandate holders, but the difficult
negotiations resulted in a Presidential Statement, which for the first
time links the re-appointment of mandate holders to their conduct.55
The statement alters a long-standing practice of the Commission on
Human Rights that automatically re-appoints mandate holders to a
second term. The human rights community argued against the move
raising concerns that such a link would undermine the independence
of the special procedures by exposing them to political pressures.

Conclusion
The Human Rights Councils transition from institution building
to addressing human rights situations got off to a rocky start in the
second cycle. After delays in the Sixth session caused by uncertainty
on how to move forward with the task of reviewing mandates, the
Council eventually began this work in December and also started
addressing human rights situations. While the Council considered
numerous country situations throughout the year, it acted only
on a few. It failed to effectively address several unfolding human
rights crises, such as Zimbabwe and Tibet, or speak forcefully on
ongoing situations as urgent as Darfur. The Council discontinued
the mandates on the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Group
of Experts on Darfur, two areas of the world where gross and
systematic human rights violations continue to take place. On the
issue of country scrutiny, the Council split almost evenly between
members of the EU and WEOG that support the principle of country
scrutiny and the African Group, which under the leadership of
Egypt, conditions such attention only at the request of a government.
A Code of Conduct for special procedures mandate holders contained in Resolution 5/2 was adopted
by the Council, despite opposition from the human rights community.
Alston was criticized by Nigeria, the Philippines, India, Algeria, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Sudan, and
Pakistan (on behalf of the OIC). Alston had recently visited the Philippines, Sri Lanka and voiced
criticism of them in his report. He also noted that India had not responded to a request for visit.
54
Russia and Indonesia criticized Nowaks working methods, including unannounced visits and private
interviews. Nowak responded that these methods were necessary for fact-finding missions.
55
The Presidential Statement, A/HRC/8/PRST/2, provides that the terms of office of the mandate
holder shall be extended for a second three year term by the Council, only if no information on
persistent non-compliance by a mandate holder with the provisions of the [Code of Conduct] is brought
to the attention of the Council.
52
53

2007-2008 Cycle at a Glance

The Council passed 128 resolutions and decisions, and 4
presidential statements.

Of those resolutions, decisions, and presidential statements, 54

(including 32 UPR outcome decisions) dealt with country specific

situations such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Somalia,
Myanmar, Haiti, the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Democratic
Peoples Republic of Korea, Sudan, Liberia, and Burundi.
76% of the Councils resolutions were passed by consensus.
The Council extended the mandates of 33 Special Procedures
and created two new Special Procedures mandates the Special
Rapporteur on contemporary forms of slavery and the Independent
Expert on the issue of human rights obligations related to access to
safe drinking water and sanitation.
The Council extended the country mandates of Myanmar, North
Korea, Liberia, Haiti, and Somalia, and discontinued the Experts
Group on Darfur and the Independent Expert on the Democratic
Republic of the Congo.
13 new Special Procedures mandate holders were appointed.
32 countries were reviewed during the first two sessions of the
Universal Periodic Review (UPR) mechanism, a process by which
the human rights situation of all UN member states is reviewed
during a four-year cycle.
18 members were elected to the Human Rights Councils Advisory
Committee, a think tank of the Council that works at its discretion.

The OIC generally supported the African line on opposing country

scrutiny with one major exception, the Occupied Palestinian
Territory. Select countries in GRULAC and non-OIC states in Africa
and Asia were consistently the swing votes on country-specific issues.
The subject of discrimination based on religion, specifically Islam,
was an increasingly controversial subject. Muslim-majority states
favored a conceptual framework of combating defamation of
religion and the inclusion of references to Islamophobia and
incitement to hatred in various resolutions, prompting a reaction by
the EU, WEOG states, and other non-Muslim majority countries
that such a concept was incompatible with human rights discourse,
endangered freedom of expression, and or was overly focused on
one religion. Again, the EU and WEOG states found themselves on
the opposite side of the OIC and the majority of African countries.
GRULAC and non-OIC African and Asian states were once again
the deciding vote in many of these debates.
Throughout the year, member states attempted to re-open the terms
and modalities of the Councils working methods established in
the institution-building package with the aim, in most cases, of
weakening them. These included restricting NGO participation and
exerting the Councils control on expert mechanisms, such as the

special procedures and OHCHR. While these efforts were usually

led by specific member states such as Egypt, Cuba, India, or China,
the majority of states in their regional or cross-regional groups either
supported these positions or remained silent. With few exceptions, the
EU and WEOG states were the only countries that spoke to protect
the strength and integrity of the Councils working methods; Mexico
should be noted for its role in defending NGO participation.
These issues will continue to be debated in the third year of the
Council as governments grapple with differing views on how the
body should work to protect and promote human rights. The current
style of bloc politics at the Council has led to negotiations among
regional and cross-regional groups that are increasingly conducted
behind closed doors and pursue consensual outcomes. In many cases,
this has prevented states from speaking independently and clearly on
serious human rights concerns. It will be important to observe the dynamics of these groups moving forward, particularly the performance
of GRULAC and whether it will evolve into a more proactive player
commensurate with its current position as a swing region, as well
as the direction and unity of the African Group, which is currently
driving the effort to eliminate expert country mandates on its own
continent.

11

INDICATOR

Albania
Algeria
Argentina
Armenia

OBSERVER STATES

Angola
Azerbaijan
Bangladesh
Bolivia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Brazil
Cameroon
Canada
China
Cuba
Djibouti
Egypt
France
Gabon
Germany
Ghana
Guatemala
India
Indonesia
Italy
Japan
Jordan
Madagascar
Malaysia
Mali
Mauritius
Mexico
Netherlands
Nicaragua
Nigeria
Pakistan
Peru
Philippines
Qatar
Republic of Korea
Romania
Russia
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Slovenia
South Africa
Sri Lanka
Switzerland
Ukraine
United Kingdom
Uruguay
Zambia

MEMBER STATES

12

Voted against
Amendment
on Reporting
on Abuses of
Freedom of
Expression

Voted against
Amendment on the
"importance of the
media to report and
deliver information in
a fair and impartial
manner"
Supported
Special
Session
on the
Right to
Food

Voted in Favor of
Resolution on
Good Governance
in the Promotion
and Protection of
Human Rights

Favored a broad
interpretation of
the participation
of NGOs in the
UPR outcome
debate

Supported
Special
Session on
Myanmar

Voted to Extend
Mandate on the
Democratic
People's
Republic of
Korea

Favored
Renewal of
Mandate on the
Democratic
Republic of the
Congo

Favored
Renewal of
Mandate on the
Group of
Experts on
Darfur

Voted in favor of
resolution on Israeli
settlements in the
Occupied
Palestinian Territory

Australia
Austria
Bahrain
Belarus
Belgium
Bhutan
Bulgaria
Chile
Congo
Cote d'Ivoire
Croatia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Democratic People's Republic of Korea
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Denmark
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
Estonia
Finland
Greece
Guinea
Haiti
Honduras
Hungary
Iceland
Iran
Ireland
Laos
Latvia
Lesotho
Libya
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Maldives
Malta
Monaco
Montenegro
Morocco
Mozambique
New Zealand
Norway
Palestine
Panama
Poland
Portugal
Serbia
Singapore
Slovakia
Spain
Sudan
Sweden
Tanzania
The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
Tunisia
Turkey
United States of America
Venezuela
Vietnam
Zimbabwe

13

INDICATOR

14

Nations in the area of human rights and democratic

development

Amendment on Reporting on
Abuses of Freedom of Expression

Caucus at the United Nations.

DCPs policy agenda includes:

Strengthening the work of the United

Fax +1 202.721.5658

info@demcoalition.org
No position
taken
24

No position
taken
13

Abstained
0

Favored the
renewal
12 members
8 observers
Voted in favor
46

Improving international responses to

Voted against
1

Against the
renewal
22 members
1 observer

Against the
renewal
14 members
2 observers

Voted against
extension
7

Monitoring the foreign policies of governments as they

Promoting reform and strengthening of the

During the Seventh session, the Council adopted this resolution with a vote of 46 states in favor, 1
against, and no abstentions. The resolution urged Israel to reverse the settlement policy in the occupied
territories and to stop immediately the expansion of the existing settlements.

During the Sixth session, the mandate of the Group of Experts on Darfur was terminated through the
adoption of a resolution by consensus. Only twelve member states had earlier stated their support for its
renewal. The Council tasked the Special Rapporteur on the Sudan with the responsibility of following up
on the medium-run implementation of the recommendations made by the Group of Experts.

During the Seventh session, the mandate of the Independent Expert on the DRC was terminated. Only
nine member states publicly supported the extension of the mandate before a consensus resolution was
passed failing to renew the mandate and calling on the OHCHR and thematic mandates to provide
assistance to the DRC.

During the Seventh session, the resolution extending the mandate on the DPRK was adopted by a vote
of 22 states in favor, 7 against, and 18 abstentions. The resolution expresses deep concern about the
widespread violations of human rights in the DPRK. It also urges the government of the DPRK to
cooperate fully with the Special Rapporteur on the DPRK.

With the support of 17 member states and 36 observer states, the President on October 2, 2007 convened
the Fifth special session to address the human rights situation resulting from the escalating violence in
Myanmar. It resulted in the adoption by consensus of a resolution that "strongly deplores" the violent
repression of peaceful demonstrations and encourages the government of Myanmar to cooperate with
the UN and the Special Rapporteur on Myanmar.

relate to human rights and democracy promotion

Resolution on Israeli settlements in the

Occupied Palestinian Territory

1120 19th Street, NW, 8th Floor

Favored the
renewal
9 members
4 observers

coalition-building

Mandate on the Group of

Experts on Darfur

Democracy Coalition Project

18

Contact us

22

Abstained

During consideration of the the UPR working group reports during the Eighth session, some member
states interpreted the institution-building package in a way that limits NGOs to commenting only on
issues already contained in the final reports. NGOs speaking during the reviews of Bahrain, Morocco,
Algeria, Pakistan, and Indonesia were continuously interrupted by points of order on whether their
statements were within the scope of the working group reports.

During the Seventh session, the resolution was adopted by a vote of 41 states in favor, none against and 6
abstentions. The resolution welcomed the OHCHRs publication on good governance practices and
requested the OHCHR to prepare another report on anti-corruption, good governance and human rights.

The President convened the Seventh special session on March 22, 2008 to address the global food crisis.
The session was supported by 41 member states and 41 observer states. The session resulted in the
adoption by consensus of a resolution that urges states to pursue the necessary means to ensure that the
right to food is upheld.

This amendment to the draft resolution on the mandate on the right to freedom of expression was passed
by a vote of 29 in favor, 3 abstentions and 15 against during the Seventh session. It cites the importance
of the media to report and deliver information in a fair and impartial manner. The draft resolution was
adopted by a vote of 32 in favor, none against, and 15 abstentions, thereby renewing the mandate.

Voted to extend

work on advocacy, research, and coalition-building

1 member
3 observers

Democracy Coalition Project (DCP) focuses its

democratic crises
Did not sign call
for special
session
29

as an initiative of the Open Society Institute, the

Signed call for

special session

29

Favored a
restrictive
interpretation
12 members
3 observers

and other multilateral organs. Begun in June 2001

Mandate on the Democratic Republic

of the Congo

the foreign policies of governments as they relate to

No position
taken

Voted against
0

particularly through the UN Human Rights Council

Supported by
signing call for
special session
17 members
36 observers

Favored a broad
interpretation

international coalition of organizations to monitor

Abstained
6

essential element of international peace and human

Did not sign call

for special
session
6

of democracy and human rights internationally,

Mandate on the Democratic People's

Republic of Korea

Community of Democracies and an active Democracy

Voted in favor
41

toward the goal of democratic development as an

Voted in favor
29

nongovernmental organization that conducts

Special Session on Myanmar

works to encourage a more transparent and active

Supported by
signing call for
special session
41 members
41 observers

DCP plays a leadership role in building an

Abstained
3

Voted in favor
27

research and advocacy relating to the advancement

This amendment to the draft resolution on the mandate on the right to freedom of expression was passed
by a vote of 27 in favor, 3 abstentions and 17 against during the Seventh session. It altered the scope of
the mandate to report on instances of abuse of freedom of expression. The draft resolution was adopted
by a vote of 32 in favor, none against, and 15 abstentions, thereby renewing the mandate.

OUTCOME
The Democracy Coalition Project is a

Participation of NGOs in the UPR

outcome debate

Resolution on Good Governance in the

Promotion and Protection of Human Rights

human rights and democracy promotion. DCP also

Voted against
15

Abstained
3

development.

Special Session on the Right to Food

Amendment on the importance of the

media to report and deliver information in a
fair and impartial manner

Voted against
17

POSITIONS
About the Democracy Coalition Project

United Nations through civil society participation and

Washington, DC 20036, U.S.A.

Ph. +1 202.721.5630

About the Democracy Coalition Project

The Democracy Coalition Project is a nongovernmental organization that conducts research and advocacy relating to the advancement of
democracy and human rights internationally, particularly through the UN Human Rights Council and other multilateral organs. Begun in
June 2001 as an initiative of the Open Society Institute, the Democracy Coalition Project (DCP) focuses its work on advocacy, research, and
coalition-building toward the goal of democratic development as an essential element of international peace and human development.
DCP plays a leadership role in building an international coalition of organizations to monitor the foreign policies of governments as they
relate to human rights and democracy promotion. DCP also works to encourage a more transparent and active Community of Democracies
and an active Democracy Caucus at the United Nations.

DCPs policy agenda includes:

Strengthening the work of the United Nations in the area of human rights and democratic development
Monitoring the foreign policies of governments as they relate to human rights and democracy promotion
Promoting reform and strengthening of the United Nations through civil society participation and coalition-building
Improving international responses to democratic crises

Contact us
Democracy Coalition Project
1120 19th Street, NW, 8th Floor
Washington, DC 20036, U.S.A.
Ph. +1 202.721.5630
Fax +1 202.721.5658
info@demcoalition.org

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: PROJECT ASSISTANT:

Dokhi Fassihian

Busi Langa

PROGRAM ASSOCIATE: RESEARCH ASSISTANT:

Sarah Rivard

Payal Patel

BOARD OF DIRECTORS:
Morton H. Halperin, President and Chairman
Theodore Piccone
Dokhi Fassihian
Robert Herman

Report released in October 2008

15

www.demcoalition.org

HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL REPORT CARD: G OVERNMENT P OSITIONS

16

ON

K EY I SSUES 2007 2008