2008-2009 Human Rights Council Report Card

HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL
REPORT
CARD:
Government Positions on Key Issues
2008
2009
REPORT
CARD:
2008
2009
About the Human Rights Council 2008-2009 Cycle

MEMBER
COUNTRY
MEMBER
COUNTRY
MEMBER
COUNTRY
Angola
France
Pakistan
Argentina
Gabon
Philippines
Azerbaijan
Germany
Qatar
Bahrain
Ghana
Republic of Korea
Bangladesh
India
Russia
Bolivia
Indonesia
Saudi Arabia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Italy
Senegal
Brazil
Japan
Slovakia
Burkina Faso
Jordan
Slovenia
Cameroon
Madagascar
South Africa
Canada
Malaysia
Switzerland
Chile
Mauritius
Ukraine
China
Mexico
United Kingdom
Cuba
Netherlands
Uruguay
Djibouti
Nicaragua
Zambia
Egypt
Nigeria
UN REGIONAL GROUPS
OTHER CROSS-REGIONAL BLOCS
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)
Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC)

(16 members on the Council)
European Union (EU) (7 members on the Council)
Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) (27 members on the Council)
Group of Arab States (6 members on the Council)
Dynamics of Regional and Cross-regional Blocs

Regional groups form the basis for geographic representation through designated seats on the Human Rights Council (Council). The membership of the
Council consists of 13 member states from the African Group, 13 from the Asian Group, six from the Eastern European Group, eight from the Group
of Latin American and Caribbean States (GRULAC), and seven from the Western European and Others Group (WEOG). In addition to these informal
UN regional groups, several cross-regional blocs continued to be active at the Council, including the European Union (EU), the Organization of the
Islamic Conference (OIC), the Arab Group, and the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM).
During the 2008-2009 cycle, the EU was by far the most active cross-regional bloc which spoke and voted collectively on most issues debated at the
Council followed by the OIC and the African Group. NAM and the Arab Group engaged on only a few issues such as the situation in the Occupied
Palestinian Territory and the global economic crisis. Generally, the African Group and the OIC remained at odds with members of the EU and WEOG
on many country, thematic, and procedural issues. However, there were cases this year when European states did not speak on behalf of the EU as
a whole, and when African states broke from their group to take stronger positions on human rights. During the cycle, the Asian Group, the Eastern
European Group, and GRULAC never spoke or voted as a group and continued to serve as swing regions on a range of thematic and country issues.
Russia, China, and Cuba almost always joined the African Group and OIC positions while Japan, Republic of Korea, Ukraine, Chile and Argentina
generally took similar positions as the EU.
Officers of the human rights council: 2008-2009

President:
Martin Ihoeghian Uhomoibhi (Nigeria)
Vice-Presidents:
Elchin Amirbayov (Azerbaijan)
Erlinda F. Basilio (Philippines)
Alberto J. Dumont (Argentina)
Marius Grinius (Canada)
Vice-President and Rapporteur:

Elchin Amirbayov (Azerbaijan)
Analysis of Government Positions on

Key Human Rights Issues 2007-2008
position. In addition to the issues which DCP took a position on, we have also
examined other important debates and decisions which took place during the
Councils third cycle.
As part of its regular series of reports monitoring United Nations human
During the year, governments continued to speak on behalf of regional,

cross-regional, or geo-political groupings of states. In these cases, members
of groups were assumed to support the group opinion unless they clearly
disassociated themselves from the group position or were recorded as
expressing an alternative view. The positions of observer states were tracked
only in cases where they expressed an explicit position on the specific issue at
hand.3 Since many of the state-to-state consultations were conducted behind
closed doors, it was difficult to fully ascertain the role played by all states in
the decision-making process. Thus, analyzing the public statements and votes
of governments was judged to be the most accurate way to hold governments
accountable in a uniform manner.
rights bodies, the Democracy Coalition Project (DCP) worked again to

provide an independent analysis of the UN Human Rights Councils (the
Council) third year of work ending at the close of the Eleventh regular session
in June 2009. DCP reviewed the bodys performance by studying the trends
observed at the intergovernmental body, as well as tracking the positions of
governments on thematic, procedural and country-specific issues during the
Councils third year of work.
The 2008-2009 year (also referred to as the third cycle) proved to be a busier
year for the Council as it met for the Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh regular
sessions as well as the Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh special sessions.
During the third cycle, the Council increased its focus on country specific
situations and also addressed a number of thematic human rights issues.
The Council adopted 121 resolutions and decisions and three presidential
statements, including 18 dealing with country situations during its regular and
special sessions and 48 country specific decisions as outcomes of the Universal
Periodic Review.1 In addition, it continued to debate its working methods
and procedures, particularly related to special procedures2 and the work of
mandate holders.
Methodology
DCP has selected a set of indicators from the debates and decisions taken
by the Council over the 2008-2009 cycle. They consist of key thematic,
country-specific, and procedural issues deemed important by the global
human rights community. While the chosen indicators aim to measure the
general commitment by states to the promotion and protection of human
rights in the areas discussed, they do not represent a complete picture of the
international human rights records of states. Rather, they reflect the behavior
of governments on important issues addressed by the Council which drew
divergent positions among states, but which the human rights community
generally agreed that a particular position best promoted and protected human
rights.
To establish the positions of governments on these issues, DCP consulted
the public record through available documentation, UN webcasts, as well
as summaries of debates reported through the Council Monitor published by
the International Service for Human Rights. Based on this information,
each country was evaluated against the preferred position considered by the
human rights community as the best option for the promotion and protection
of human rights, and marked with a , , or , in the accompanying table.
States marked with an supported the preferred position while states marked
with a opposed the preferred position. States marked with did not take a
Addressing human rights situations

The Human Rights Council addressed a number of country-specific human
rights situations as hostilities escalated in several regions of the world.
Debates on country situations continued to reveal splits among states on how
best to confront crises in nations such as the Democratic Republic of Congo
(DRC), the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT), Sudan, and Sri Lanka.
Egypt continued to promote the problematic position that country mandates
which do not enjoy the support of the concerned government should not be
extended. Fortunately, this stance was not honored by all states in Egypts
regional group, many of which recognized the needs of victims in countries
that lack national and or regional protection.
A new trend was observed during the year where competing texts were
presented by the EU and by the African Group, OIC or NAM on the same
country situation. The EU texts typically contained stronger language relating
to ongoing violations and the human rights obligations of states, as well as
the inclusion of follow-up and accountability mechanisms. In the first half
of the cycle, the two texts were merged to obtain a soft outcome for the sake
of consensus. In the second half of the cycle, consensus was not regarded
as possible, and the alternative texts competed for adoption. However, for
procedural reasons and in one instance after procedural maneuvers the
weaker, congratulatory texts presented by the African Group, NAM, or OIC
were considered first for adoption by the Council. These events were followed
by efforts by the EU to strengthen the weaker texts with amendments. After
failing to secure stronger provisions on the DRC and Sri Lanka, amendments
finally succeeded in continuing a mandate on the Sudan late in the cycle.
1 Forty-eight of the 66 country-specific resolutions and decisions were UPR outcomes. The Council held three working groups to review the human rights records of 48 states through
the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) mechanism. DCPs analysis does not include a substantive discussion of the 48 reviews of states under the UPR mechanism as it was considered
beyond the scope of this study.
2 The term special procedure(s) refers generally to a human rights expert(s) appointed or mandate by the Human Rights Council to work on specific country or thematic issues.
3 Observer states can actively participate in the Council through speaking and sponsoring resolutions, but observers cannot vote.
A3
REPORT
CARD:
2008
2009
Sudan
The Sudan, which witnessed continued violence and human rights abuses
throughout the year, was one of several countries to receive repeated attention
by the Council over the course of the cycle. At the Ninth session, France (on
behalf of the EU) presented a draft resolution4 that sought to address the critical
human rights issues on the ground, as well as secure the year-long extension of
the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Sudan.
However, after further consultations, a revised resolution was jointly introduced by
France (on behalf of the EU) and Egypt (on behalf of the African Group) which
regrettably reconfigured the text to extend the mandate only until June 2009 rather
than a full year as stipulated in the institution-building text.5 The final text also
lacked references to ongoing human rights violations. Despite these significant
weaknesses, the resolution was adopted by consensus.6
A resolution dealing with the situation in the Sudan was tabled for a second time
at the Eleventh session due to the mandates partial renewal at the Ninth session.
The draft resolution, sponsored by Egypt (on behalf of the African Group)7
failed to renew the mandate of the Special Rapporteur. Rather, in stark contrast
to assessments by human rights groups, it acknowledged the gains made by the
government of the Sudan in improving its human rights situation and called
for technical and financial assistance to further these gains. At the session, the
Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, in collaboration with 13 Arab NGOs,
expressed deep concern over the deteriorating security and humanitarian situation
in Darfur and the retaliatory actions by the Government of the Sudan in response
to the International Criminal Courts decision to issue an arrest warrant against
the Sudanese President on March 4, 2009.8 The conflict in Darfur has been
continuously deteriorating as a result of national and regional impunity practiced
by the Sudanese as well as Arab and African governments, the groups stated.
Not only is the Sudanese government failing to respect, protect, and fulfill the
rights of its citizens and offer adequate protection to the civilian population, it is a
flagrant perpetrator of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Noting that dissolving the mandate in its entirety was not appropriate to the
situation, Germany (on behalf of the EU, Canada, Switzerland and Japan9), with
the support of Brazil and Zambia,10 introduced amendments to create a new
mandate for an Independent Expert on the situation of human rights in the
Sudan for a period of one year. Egypt (on behalf of the African Group), Russia,
and the Sudan11 all opposed the amendments, arguing that the African Group text
included mechanisms to keep the Council well informed of the situation. Egypt
called for a vote on the EU amendments, which led to their adoption by a vote of
20 states in favor, 19 against, and eight abstentions. The majority of the African
Group and OIC states voted against the amendments, while a select cross-regional
group supported the amendments proposed by the EU.12
The successful strengthening of the resolution was aided by Mauritius and

Zambia, which both supported the amendments, as well as Burkina Faso,
Ghana, Nigeria, and Senegal, which all abstained from the vote. The revised
resolution was passed in its entirety by an almost identical vote of 20 states
in favor, 18 against, and nine abstentions creating a new Independent Expert
for one year. Again, the support of Mauritius and Zambia, as well as several
states from the Group of Latin American and Caribbean states (GRULAC),13
ensured the resolutions adoption. In addition, six African states abstained
from voting in an apparent pushback against efforts to remove existing
Council mechanisms from this country situation.14
The support for continued engagement on the Sudan by Brazil, Ghana,
Mauritius, Uganda, and Zambia can be seen as a positive step in dampening
the influence of states that wish to weaken the Councils attention to this
critical situation. In the end, the majority of African states either voted for
or abstained from the vote to maintain a mandate. In a pointed statement,
Uganda, an observer state, expressed its hope that the African Groups future
actions would be more reflective of its true overall position on matters before
the Council.
Democratic Republic of the Congo

The DRC was also the subject of multiple discussions before the Council over
the third cycle. Renewed violence and heavy fighting between the Congolese
armed forces and armed rebel factions in late 2008 led to an urgent human
rights and humanitarian crisis throughout the Kivu provinces that left over a
thousand civilians dead.15 On November 28, 2008, the Council convened the
Eighth special session on the Situation of human rights in the East of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo. The session, sponsored by France (on
4 A/HRC/L.2 was also supported by Australia, Canada, Chile, New Zealand, and Norway.
5 Paragraph 60 of Resolution 5/1.
6 A/HRC/RES/9/17.
7 Uganda chose to remove itself from the sponsorship of the African Group text.
8 Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies Joint written intervention before HRC 11th session about the deteriorating humanitarian situation in Darfur, June 16, 2009.
9 Observer states Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Norway,
Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden and the United States also co-sponsored the amendmendments.
10 While Brazil and Zambia did not co-sponsor the amendments they did explicitly state their support of the creation of an Independent Expert.
11 A/HRC/11/L.19.
12 In addition to the EU, Argentina, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Japan, Mauritius, Mexico, Switzerland, Ukraine, Uruguay, and Zambia supported the
amendments. Azerbaijan, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Ghana, India, Nicaragua, Nigeria, and Senegal abstained.
13 Brazil, Chile, Mexico, and Uruguay all supported both votes.
14 Angola, Burkina Faso, Gabon, Ghana, Madagascar, and Senegal abstained. Angola voted against the amendments, but abstained from the final resolution.
15 Ploughshares, Armed Conflict Reports Democratic Republic of Congo, January 2009. The over a thousand conflict related fatalities does not include the vast number of DRC
civilians that die each day from conflict related causes such as disease and malnutrition, or are victims of sexual assault.
behalf of the EU), received cross-regional support from 16 member and 26

observer states.16 In addition to the EU, Argentina, Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Canada, Chile, Japan, Mexico, the Republic of Korea, Switzerland, Ukraine,
and Uruguay supported the session. States from the African Group and the
OIC were noticeably absent from the call for the session.
France (on behalf of the EU) withdrew its prepared draft resolution from
consideration following informal consultations with Egypt (on behalf of
the African Group). A second draft resolution,17 sponsored by Egypt (on
behalf of the African Group), as well as Monaco and Switzerland, expressed
concern at the deteriorating situation of refugees and internally displaced
persons resulting from the escalation of the conflict and condemned the
acts of violence, human rights violations and abuses committed in Kivu.
Nevertheless, it failed to provide for a new special procedure to monitor
the situation; instead, it invited the group of thematic experts and the
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) to report
on technical assistance options for the DRC at the Tenth regular session in
March 2009.18 The resolution was adopted by consensus despite failing to
reflect the recommendations of experts and human rights organizations to
establish stronger mechanisms. In a statement on December 1, 2008, Amnesty
International sharply criticized the Council for failing to ensure accountability
for the violations.19 We regret that the Council expended so much time and
energy on reaching agreement to make important political statements that it
could not find the political courage and unity of purpose to adopt practical
measures to give effect to them, said Peter Splinter of Amnesty International.
During the Tenth session in March, the Council adopted a follow-up
resolution to the special session, Situation of human rights in the Democratic
Republic of the Congo and the strengthening of technical cooperation and
consultative services,20 which called upon the international community and
OHCHR to increase assistance to the country. During the debate, African
states largely praised the governments efforts to engage the Councils
mechanisms and commented on the need for additional technical assistance
from international partners.21 On the other hand, states from every region
of the world except Africa, voiced concerns about ongoing human rights
violations and worsening humanitarian conditions, and reiterated support for
the recommendation of the thematic experts to create a new special procedure
to work exclusively on the DRC.
22
Again, two separate texts were presented, one by the Czech Republic (on
behalf of the EU) and one by Egypt (on behalf of the African Group).
While the EU text requested that an independent expert on the DRC be
appointed for a period of one year, the African Group text simply invited
the Government of the DRC, the group of thematic experts and OHCHR
to update the Council on the development of the situation in March 2010.

Both the EU and the African Group texts ignored the middle-ground
recommendation by the group of thematic rapporteurs to create a mandate
on the human rights situation in the DRC in particular areas affected
or threatened by armed conflict.23 The rejection by both the EU and the
African Group of the experts recommendation entrenched the negotiating
positions of the EU and the African Group leadership. Through a procedural
maneuver, Egypts resolution was considered first, thus removing the Czech
text from consideration. Germany (on behalf of the EU) then introduced a
package of amendments to the draft resolution24 to strengthen the African
Group text. The amendments condemned the increased acts of sexual
violence and recruitment of child soldiers and called for the thematic experts
to form a coordinated group on the DRC to evaluate progress on human
rights. The EU argued that the situation in the DRC had significantly
deteriorated since the previous year and demanded the continued attention of
the Council. Unfortunately, the amendments were defeated by a vote of 18 in
favor, 21 against, and eight abstentions in part due to the abstention of several
African states.25
In addition to Russia and Azerbaijan, the majority of Asian, African, and OIC
states voted against the amendments, while WEOG states and the majority
of GRULAC states supported the motion. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Japan,
Republic of Korea, and Ukraine also voted in favor of the amendments.
Notably, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Uruguay, all of which did not support the
call for the special session in November, voted in favor of the amendments
to strengthen the Tenth session resolution. Cuba and Brazil were the only
GRULAC countries not to support the amendments. The un-amended final
resolution was adopted by a vote of 33 in favor, 14 abstentions, and none
against. EU states abstained from the final vote due to concerns that the
resolution did not offer the necessary support that the situation warranted.
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, Japan, Nicaragua, Republic of Korea,
Switzerland, and Ukraine also abstained from the vote.
Occupied Palestinian Territory

The Council continued its focus on the human rights situation in the Occupied
Palestinian Territory (OPT) throughout the third cycle.26 At the Ninth
session, Archbishop Desmond Tutu presented the report from the High
Level Fact-Finding Mission to Beit Hanoun and called for an independent
international inquiry into the November 2006 assault stating that it may have
constituted a war crime. A follow-up resolution to the Third special session
entitled Human rights violations emanating from Israeli military incursions
in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and the shelling of Beit Hanoun, cosponsored by Morocco (on behalf of the African Group), Egypt (on behalf
16 The support of one third of the Councils membership at least 16 member states are needed to convene a special session.
17 A/HRC/S-8/L.2/Rev.2.
18 The thematic rapporteurs were appointed under A/HRC/7/L.13.
19 Amnesty International, Human Rights Council: Words are not enough Civilians in eastern DRC need more than half measures, December 1, 2008.
20 A/HRC/10/L.3.
21 Algeria, Angola, Congo, Djibouti, Egypt (on behalf of the African Group), Tunisia, and Uganda.
22 Canada, Chile, Czech Republic (on behalf of the EU), Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, UK, and US.
23 The recommendation is included in the report of the thematic experts in para. 119, A/HRC/10/59.
24 Amendments to L.3.
25 Burkina Faso, Ghana, Mauritius, Senegal, and Zambia.
26 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
Territories.
and other occupied Arab
A5
REPORT
CARD:
2008
2009
Pakistan (on behalf of the OIC) and backed by a total of 33 member states.30
EU states were conspicuously absent from the call, as were Canada, Japan,
Mexico, Ukraine, and the Republic of Korea.
The resolution31 tabled by the special sessions sponsors strongly condemned
Israeli military operations, called for an immediate ceasefire and lifting of the
blockade, as well as for the return to peace negotiations based on a two-state
solution. The resolution also requested that the UN High Commissioner
for Human Rights, the Secretary-General, and all relevant special procedure
mandate holders report on the violations of human rights of the Palestinian
people by Israel. Finally, it requested the President of the Council to appoint
an expert to conduct an urgent international fact-finding mission. The
resolution was adopted with 33 in favor, one against, and 13 abstentions.
of the Arab Group), and Pakistan (on behalf of the OIC), was adopted by a
vote of 32 states in favor, nine against, and five abstentions.27 Canada and all
of the Councils EU member states voted against the resolution, which called
upon all concerned parties of the conflict to ensure the full and immediate
implementation of the recommendations of the fact-finding mission. It also
called upon Israel to abide by its obligations under international law, including
international humanitarian and human rights law.
Cuba (on behalf of NAM), Egypt (on behalf of the African Group), and
Pakistan (on behalf of the OIC) stated their view that the assault did, in
fact, constitute a war crime, and criticized Israels non-cooperation with the
investigation. France (on behalf of the EU) expressed serious reservations
with a number of the reports conclusions but stopped short of explaining
the rationale behind those reservations. In a statement on behalf of several
European member states,28 the Netherlands explained that it was not in a
position to endorse the recommendations or ensure their implementation.
Canada further argued that the resolution did not present an accurate
representation of the situation and was fundamentally flawed and onesided.
During the year, the Council called another special session on the human
rights situation in the OPT after renewed conflict. The Ninth special session
on The grave violations of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian
Territory particularly due to the recent Israeli military aggression on the
occupied Gaza Strip was convened on January 9, 2009 in response to the
Israeli military siege on Gaza in late December which led to the deaths of over
1,400 Palestinians and 13 Israelis.29 The session was co-sponsored by Cuba
(on behalf of NAM), Egypt (on behalf of the African and Arab Groups), and
While nearly every state expressed concerns about the renewed fighting and
urged a ceasefire, the final voting reflected previous divisions on the conflict.
Speaking on behalf of the EU, Germany stated it would abstain from the
vote due to the resolutions failure to address both sides of the conflict.
Canada, which called for a vote, was the only country to vote against the
resolution arguing that the text failed to clearly recognize that rocket fire on
Israel led to the current crisis. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Republic of Korea,
Japan, Switzerland, and Ukraine joined the EU in abstaining from the vote.
Cameroon was the only member state to sign the call for the special session
but abstain from the final vote on the resolution. In April, Justice Richard
Goldstone was appointed to lead the fact-finding mission and secured the
agreement of the President of the Council to investigate violations on both
sides of the conflict.32
At the Tenth regular session in March, the Special Rapporteur on the human
rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories, Mr. Richard
Falk, presented his annual report,33 which addressed the recent Gaza conflict;
the pre-existing blockade of Gaza; the tactics employed by both sides; and
the ongoing expansion of Israeli settlements. Falk also recommended further
action to be taken by the Council to address his denied entry, ill-treatment,
and expulsion by Israel in December 2008 just prior to the start of the Gaza
war. The debate following his presentation once again reflected the traditional
divide among states regarding the conflict. The Czech Republic (on behalf of
the EU) said that it would welcome a review of the mandate of the Special
Rapporteur with a view to ensure the scope permitted Falk to report from
all angles of the situation. However, the issue of settlements drew broad
agreement from the Councils membership as the EU joined the African
Group, NAM, and the OIC in voicing concern over the settlements violation
of international laws.34
27 A/HRC/RES/9/18.
Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Slovakia, Slovenia, and the UK voted against the resolution. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cameroon,
Republic of Korea, Switzerland, and Ukraine abstained from the vote.
28 France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Slovakia, Slovenia, the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland.
29 United Nations Relief and Works Agency, Emergency Operations in Gaza Interim Progress Report January March 2009, June 24, 2009.
30 According to the HRC report, A/HRC/S-9/2, Argentina, Brazil, China, Switzerland and Uruguay all signed-on after the initial request had been sent to the HRC President.
31 A/HRC/S-9/L.1.
32 Huffington Post, UN Israel-Gaza Investigation to be Led by South African Richard Goldstone, April 3, 2009.
33 A/HRC/10/20.
34 Bahrain, Cuba (on behalf of NAM), Czech Republic (on behalf of the EU), Egypt (on behalf of the African Group), Iceland, Jordan, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Switzerland, and
Tunisia.
Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea

During the Tenth session, the Council again successfully renewed the mandate
of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic Peoples
Republic of Korea for one year. The resolution, Situation of human rights in
the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea,35 co-sponsored by the Czech
Republic (on behalf of the EU), Japan, and several other states,36 expressed
serious concern at the ongoing grave, widespread and systematic human
rights violations occurring in the country and urged the Government of the
Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (DPRK) to cooperate with special
procedures. Predictably, the Government of the DPRK firmly maintained its
rejection of the resolution, as well as the work of the Special Rapporteur, Mr.
Vitit Muntarbhorn. Nonetheless, the resolution was adopted by a vote of 26 in
favor, six against, and 15 abstentions. WEOG states, most Eastern European
states, and several states from Africa and Asia supported the resolution.
GRULAC states were divided between those which supported the resolution
and those which abstained or voted against.37 Regrettably, Brazil changed its
position from support for the mandate the previous year to abstaining. China,
Cuba, Egypt, Indonesia, Nigeria, and Russia all voted against the resolution.38
Sri Lanka
On May 26, 2009, the Human Rights Council convened the Eleventh special
session on the human rights situation in Sri Lanka in response to the
intensification of the countrys 26 year civil war which led to nearly half a
million displaced people and 7,500 civilians killed since renewed fighting
began in mid-January 2008.39 Germany (on behalf of the EU) sponsored
the session on behalf of 17 member and 20 observer states.40 The majority
of states in the African Group, NAM, and the OIC withheld support for
the session. Before the start of the session, Cuba (on behalf of NAM) sent a
letter to the President of the Council stating its intention, along with Egypt,
India, and Pakistan to form a delegation on behalf of Sri Lanka to consider
alternative ideas to the impending session. While the session was convened
without delay, the move signified unified opposition at the outset.
While consultations were being held by the sessions cross-regional sponsors
on an outcome text, an alternative and largely self-congratulatory resolution,
Assistance to Sri Lanka in the promotion and protection of human
rights,41 was introduced by Sri Lanka, the concerned country. The resolution,
co-sponsored by a group of states from NAM and the OIC,42 commended the
measures taken by the government of Sri Lanka to address the urgent needs
of internally displaced persons (IDPs); welcomed the commitment of the
government to the promotion and protection of all human rights, encouraged

it to continue to uphold its human rights obligations and the norms of
international human rights law; and encouraged the Government to continue
to pursue its existing cooperation with relevant United Nations organizations.
Despite a repeated call by UN experts to establish an independent mechanism
to address the human rights situation, the resolution contained no follow-up
reporting or mechanisms.43 Most disturbing, the final resolution included a
reference to the principle of non-interference in matters which are essentially
within the domestic jurisdiction of states, a concept discarded by the
international community in successive human rights declarations over the last
several decades, and one that directly undermines the central mandate of the
Council to monitor human rights violations in armed conflict.
In response to the drafts glaring weaknesses, Germany (on behalf of the EU),
as well as Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, Mauritius, Switzerland, and
Ukraine, offered a set of amendments to strengthen the draft by amending the
language to call for increased accountability from the Sri Lankan government
and for OHCHR to present a follow-up report at the Twelfth regular session.
States were split between those which had called for the special session
and favored a strong role for the international community with regard to
humanitarian assistance and accountability, and those which did not support the
convening of a special session and supported the Government of Sri Lankas
prerogative to deal with the crisis. Arguing that the amendments were an
attempt to redraft the document, Cuba moved to shut down any further public
debate on the substance of the amendments based on Rule 117 of the Rules of
Procedure.44 Cubas no-action motion on the amendments was approved by
a vote of 22 in favor, 17 against, and seven abstentions. As was the case in the
call for the session, Argentina, Chile, Mauritius, Mexico, and Uruguay all voted
against the no-action motion. Unfortunately, a number of states, including
35 A/HRC/10/L. 27.
36 Australia, Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Canada, Croatia, Iceland, Israel, Liechtenstein, Monaco, Montenegro, New Zealand, Norway, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova,
Switzerland, Turkey, and the United States.
Argentina, Mexico, Uruguay, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bahrain, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Ghana, Jordan, Madagascar, Mauritius, Saudi Arabia,
and Zambia voted for the resolution. Brazil, Nicaragua, Bolivia, and Azerbaijan abstained.
38 In addition, observer states, Laos, Syria, Sri Lanka, and the Sudan expressed opposition to the renewal.
39 Internal Displacement Monitoring Center, Tens of thousands newly displaced in 2008, leading to almost half a million IDPs, April 2009, Last Updated May 1, 2009.
40 Argentina, Chile, Mauritius, Mexico, Republic of Korea, Switzerland, Canada, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Ukraine, and Uruguay joined the EU in calling for the session.
41 A/HRC/S-11/L.1/Rev.2.
42 At the 3rd meeting, on 27 May 2009, the representative of Sri Lanka introduced draft resolution A/HRC/S-11/L.1 as revised, sponsored by Sri Lanka and co-sponsored by
Bahrain, Bolivia, China, Cuba, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Nicaragua, Pakistan, the Philippines and Saudi Arabia. Subsequently, Algeria, Bangladesh, Belarus, Bhutan, Brazil,
Cambodia, Cte dIvoire, the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea, the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Lao Peoples Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Maldives, Myanmar, Nepal,
Oman, Qatar, the Russian Federation, Singapore, the Sudan, the Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, the United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, Venezuela, and Viet Nam joined the sponsors.
43 Four UN experts had initially sent a joint statement to the Council prior to the special session on May 8, 2009 calling for the creation of a commission to address human rights
violations. At the start of the session another statement was made on behalf of all special procedures recommending the establishment of an effective mechanism to investigate all
violations.
44 Rule 117 of the GA Rules of Procedures states that a representative may at any time move the closure of the debate on the item under discussion, whether or not any other
representative has signified their wish to speak.
37 Chile,
A7
REPORT
CARD:
2008
2009
Brazil and Nigeria, abstained from the no-action vote, thus allowing the motion
to pass.45 The no-action motion was a stunning and disappointing maneuver not
employed since the Commission on Human Rights that allowed states to censor
substantive discussion of the views of other states.
The final resolution was adopted by a vote of 29 in favor, 12 against, and six
abstentions by a sharply divided Council. The absence of an actual debate
and vote on the amendments had spurred Switzerland to call for a vote on
the Sri Lankan resolution, after which it, along with members of the EU,
Canada, Chile, and Mexico voted against. Uruguay was the only signatory to
the session that voted in favor of the final resolution. Although Ukraine also
supported the call for the session, it abstained from both the no-action motion
and the final vote.
Myanmar
The mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in
Myanmar46 was renewed by consensus during the Tenth session of the Council
in a resolution presented by the Czech Republic (on behalf of the EU). In
addition to renewing the mandate for one year, the resolution expressed
the Councils concerns regarding the governments violent response to
demonstrations in September 2007, the lack of transparent political processes,
and the ongoing systematic violations of human rights and fundamental
freedoms of the people of Myanmar. It also strongly urged the government
to desist immediately from further politically motivated arrests, reform the
judiciary, and cooperate with special procedures. In his report, the Special
Rapporteur on Myanmar, Mr. Tomas Ojea Quintana, cited a number of areas
of ongoing human rights concerns including the detention of prisoners of
conscience, the discrimination of minority Muslims, forced labor, and food
security. In its statement, the Government of Myanmar stated that the report
failed to reflect the true situation on the ground; specifically, it asserted that
there were no prisoners of conscience in the country. There was limited
critique of Quintanas report from member states of the Council. Indonesia,
Japan, and the Republic of Korea reiterated the concerns of the Special
Rapporteur, including the release of political prisoners. However, China,
as well as a number of ASEAN47 states, including Laos, the Philippines,
Singapore, and Thailand, were largely complimentary of the governments
progress in improving the countrys human rights situation.
ASEAN states consistent failure to raise human rights concerns in Myanmar
at the Council led to pointed criticism of the regional grouping by local
human rights organizations. [Such silence] demonstrates a serious lack of
political will and effectiveness of the ASEAN as a regional body which claims
to adhere to the principles of democracy, the rule of law and good governance,
respect for and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, said
Yap Swee Seng of the Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development in a
September 30, 2009 statement.48
45 Azerbaijan, Brazil, Gabon, Nigeria, Senegal, Ukraine, and Zambia.

46 A/HRC/10/L.28.
47 The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) includes Brunei
Other country mandates

Throughout the cycle, the Council extended several other country-specific
mandates through consensus and with the support of the countries concerned,
including Cambodia, Burundi, Haiti, and Somalia. A resolution was also
adopted by consensus on Liberia which did not extend the mandate but
requested OHCHR to continue its technical advisory services and programs in
consultation with the government.
At the Ninth session, the mandate of the Independent Expert on the situation of
human rights in Burundi49 was continued only until an independent national
human rights commission is established. This stipulation broke with the
guidance provided by the Councils institution-building text of extending
mandates for one year, and raised concerns for setting a negative precedent.
Egypt (on behalf of the African Group) and several African states50 stated that
their support for the extension of the mandate was based on the wishes of the
Burundian government.
A resolution sponsored by Japan at the Ninth session extended the
mandate of the Special Representative of the Secretary General on human rights
in Cambodia.51 The resolution, which provided for advisory services and
technical assistance, emphasized the improvements made by the Government
of Cambodia in recent years to redress the legacy of the Khmer Rouge
and further the protection and promotion of human rights throughout the
country. The resolution also changed the title of the mandate holder from
the Special Representative of the Secretary General to Special Rapporteur.
Several states pushed to insert a paragraph expressing concern for human
rights violations52 but Pakistan, Singapore, and Vietnam objected that such
language would create difficulties for the concerned country. Mr. Yash
Ghai, the Special Representative of the Secretary General on Cambodia,
criticized the Cambodian governments lack of implementation of previous
recommendations as well as the dubiousness of the general 2008 elections.
At the session, Ghai announced his resignation from the post due to tensions
between him and Cambodian government officials.
Also during the Ninth session, the mandate of the Independent Expert on
the situation of human rights in Haiti53 was extended until 2010 through a
presidential statement. In addition to commending the government for
its progress and cooperation with the UN in improving its human rights
situation, the resolution expressed concern over the deteriorating standard
of living in Haiti as a result of the economic crisis and recent hurricanes. It
also called on the international donor community to cooperate on providing
financial support to the country.
Although up for renewal, the mandate of the Independent Expert on the human
rights situation in Liberia54 was not extended at the Ninth session. In its place,
France (on behalf of the EU) introduced a resolution entitled Advisory
Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Burma (Myanmar), Philippines, Singapore, Thailand
and Viet Nam.
Forum for Human Rights and Development, ASEANs Silence on Burma at the UN Human Rights Council: Dont Speak Ill of Your Family in Front of Others, September
30, 2009.
49 A/HRC/RES/9/19.
50 DRC and Kenya.
51 A/HRC/RES/9/15.
52 Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, and Slovakia.
53 A/HRC/PRST/9/1.
54 A/HRC/RES/9/16.
48 Asian
2008 - 2009 HRC CONFLICT ORIENTED SPECIAL SESSIONS COMPARISON

SPECIAL
SESSION
CONCERNED
TERRITORY
HEIGHT OF
CONFLICT
DURING
2008 - 091
CONFLICT
RELATED
FATALITIES2
(approx.)
IDPs3
(approx.)
OUTCOME FOLLOW-UP MECHANISMS
(approx.)
8th Special
Session
(November
2008)
East of the
Democratic
Republic of
the Congo
September
2008 January
2009
1,0334
250,0005
Invites thematic special procedures to urgently examine the east

of the DRC and report to the Council at its Tenth session on how best
to technically assist the DRC in addressing the situation of human
rights.
Invites the UNHCHR to report to the Council at its Tenth session on
the human rights situation in the east of the DRC and on the
activities that the OHCHR has undertaken in the region.
Emphasizes strengthening the mandate of the UN Organization
Mission in the DRC and for all States to provide assistance to the
Mission to increase its capacity to protect civilians and to restore
peace, security and stability in the region of Kivu of the DRC.
9th Special
Session
(January
2009)
Occupied
Palestinian
Territory,
including
Gaza Strip
December 27,
2008 January 18,
2009
1,400
Palestinians
and
13 Israelis6
50,8967
Requests the UNHCHR to report on the violations of human rights

of the Palestinian people by Israel.
Requests all relevant special procedures mandate holders to
urgently gather information on violations of the human rights of the
Palestinian people and submit their reports to the Council at its next
session.
Decides to dispatch an urgent, independent fact-finding mission
to investigate all violations by Israel against the Palestinian people.
Requests the Secretary-General to investigate the latest targeting
of UN facilities in Gaza and to submit a report to the General
Assembly thereon.
Decides to follow up on the implementation of the present
resolution at its next session.
11th Special
Session
(May 2009)
Sri Lanka
Mid January
2009 early
May 2009
7,5008
300,0009
No follow-up mechanisms included in outcome.
1 The height of conflict refers to the time period during the Councils third cycle reported by news outlets and international organizations to see renewed or intensification of armed
conflict.
2 Includes the estimated number of direct conflict related fatalities that occurred during the height of the conflict within the year of the special session.
3 Includes only additional IDPs in the one year period during when the special session was convened, where figures are available.
4 Ploughshares, Armed Conflict Reports Democratic Republic of Congo, January 2009. An estimated 1,500 civilians were killed in all of 2008. It should be noted that up to 1,200
people were reported to die each day from conflict-related causes, mostly disease and malnutrition but ongoing violence as well. Sexual violence was also on the rise, with 2,200 cases
of rape reported in North Kivu in June alone.
5 Refugees International, DR Congo. <http://www.refugeesinternational.org/where-we-work/africa/dr-congo>. Amnesty International reports that since the start of the conflict in
the mid 1990s the total number of IDPs in North Kivu is over one million and may be as high as 1.6 million according to some estimates. Amnesty International, NGOs call for UN
session on the Democratic Republic of Congo, November 18, 2008.
6 United Nations Relief and Works Agency, Emergency Operations in Gaza Interim Progress Report January March 2009, June 24, 2009.
7 United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, Field Update On Gaza From The Humanitarian Coordinator, January 19, 2009.
8 International Crisis Group, DRC <http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=4459&l=1>. The ICG also reported that UN agencies estimated more than 7,500 civilians
killed between mid-January and early May 2009. A final offensive in mid-May may have killed thousands more.
9 Amnesty International, Unlock the Camps in Sri Lanka: Safety and Dignity for the displaced now, August 10, 2009. Amnesty International reported that by the end of May 2009
an additional 300,000 people had been displaced, the majority of which had arrived in the biggest complex of camps in April and May 2009. According to IDMC, as of February
2009, UNHCR was reporting a total figure of 495,000 conflict-displaced persons in Sri Lanka. Internal Displacement Monitoring Center, Tens of thousands newly displaced in
2008, leading to almost half a million IDPs, April 2009, Last Updated May 1, 2009.
A9
REPORT
CARD:
2008
2009
services and technical assistance for Liberia, which called upon OHCHR to
pursue its technical assistance activities and programs in consultation with
the authorities of Liberia. The resolution, adopted by consensus, welcomed
the steps taken by the Government of Liberia to improve and accelerate
progress on the situation of human rights, and called on the government
to extend a standing invitation to all special procedures. The Independent
Expert, Ms. Charlotte Abaka, noted improvements made by Liberia in the
area of economic, social and cultural rights. However, she also described the
continued challenges relating to civil rights, including the area of pre-trial
detention and the lack of public confidence in the police system.
At the Tenth session, the mandate of the Independent Expert on the human
rights situation in Somalia55 was renewed by consensus for six months only,
again contradicting the provisions of the Councils institution-building text
of extending mandates for one year. The resolution, sponsored by Egypt
(on behalf of the African Group), instructed the Independent Expert, Mr.
Shamsul Bari, to present an update to the Councils Twelfth session in
September 2009, when the mandate should again be considered. The first
draft of the resolution, however, provided a full-year extension of the mandate
in line with the institution-building text, as well as more regular debates at
the Council on the human rights situation in the country. Though the Somali
government had expressed its support for a regular one-year renewal, the
negotiation process broke down a couple of days before the adoption process.
Egypt, coordinating the consultations on the Somalia resolution, insisted
on extending the mandate of the Expert for a period shorter than one year
and linking it with discussions between Somali authorities and OHCHR on
strengthened OHCHR engagement in Somalia.
Bari characterized the last two decades in Somalia as one of the worst
humanitarian crises in the world due to the international communitys
inability to effectively intervene. However, he noted small improvements in
light of the withdrawal of Ethiopian troops, the Djibouti Peace Agreement,
and the new Somali government.
Thematic issues
Although much of the Councils work during the third cycle focused on
country specific issues, thematic human rights situations were of no less
overall concern. The Council convened its second ever thematic special
session in response to the global economic crisis. Substantive debates were
held on a number of issues including the human rights of civilians in
armed conflict; torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment
or punishment; discrimination on the basis of religious belief; and the
controversial concept of defamation of religions.
Protection of human rights of

civilians in armed conflict
At the Ninth session, the Council adopted a resolution sponsored by Egypt
on the Protection of human rights of civilians in armed conflict.56 The
resolution, adopted by consensus, touched off a debate regarding the
relationship between human rights law and international humanitarian law
and the role of the Council in this regard. In its most significant intervention
since formally disengaging with the body in June 2008, the United States
argued that the Councils mandate did not include matters of international
humanitarian law. Curiously, several states which traditionally support the
strengthening of Council mechanisms opposed the inclusion of references to
specific mechanisms relating to the protection of civilians in armed conflict
within the resolution.57 Nevertheless, the final resolution requested states to
facilitate the work of any mechanism that the Council may decide to establish,
as and where appropriate, in response to such violations. It also called on the
relevant human rights treaty bodies, special procedures, and the Human Rights
Advisory Committee to continue to address the matter within their mandates.
Finally, the resolution requested OHCHR to convene an expert consultation
on the subject and report back to the Council.
The issue resurfaced at the Eleventh session when UN High Commissioner
for Human Rights Ms. Navanethem Pillay delivered a statement addressing
the protection of civilians in armed conflicts in a number of countries.58
Pillay suggested that the Council could implement a number of methods to
draw attention to the suffering of civilians including through its regular and
special sessions, briefings, and inter-sessional panels. While many states
expressed support for this recommendation,59 they continued to disagree with
one another on a number of human rights issues raised. Also at the Eleventh
session, Deputy High Commissioner Ms. Kyung-wha Kang presented the
recommendations of an expert consultation in April,60 which concluded,
among other things, that a need existed for complementarities between
international human rights law, humanitarian law and human rights in
situations of armed conflict.
The global economic and financial crises

In response to the global economic crisis, the Council held its Tenth special
session on the impact of the global economic and financial crises on the universal
realization and effective enjoyment of human rights on February 20, 2009. The
session was convened following a joint call by Egypt (on behalf of the African
Group) and Brazil to provide a forum to address the economic and financial
crises from a human rights perspective. In total, 27 member states and 22
observer states from the African Group, OIC, NAM, and GRULAC supported
the request for the session.
55 A/HRC/10/L.12.
56 A/HRC/9/L.21.
57 Canada, Slovenia, Switzerland, Turkey, the UK, Belgium, Denmark, Japan, and Norway (as reported by the ISHR Council Monitor
58 Afghanistan, Chad, Colombia, DRC, Iraq, Nepal, OPT, Pakistan, Somalia, Sri Lanka, and the Sudan.
59 Austria, Czech Republic (on behalf of the EU), Germany, Jordan, Mexico, Norway, Republic of Korea, Slovenia, and Switzerland.
60 A/HRC/11/31.
10
on September 18, 2008).
Disappointingly, the Council failed to reach consensus as some states

expressed concern that the resolution did not adequately stress the primary
obligation of states to protect and promote international human rights
responsibilities amidst the crisis.65 Consequently, Germany (on behalf of
the EU) called for a vote on the text and stated the intention of the EU to
abstain as a group. Nonetheless, the draft resolution was adopted by a vote
of 31 states in favor, none against, and 14 abstentions. Canada, Switzerland,
Republic of Korea, Japan and Mexico joined the EU in abstaining.
Combating defamation of religions

The Tenth session of the Council saw the passage of the recurring resolution
At the start of the session, High Commissioner Pillay remarked that states
were not relieved of their human rights obligations in times of crisis and
measures to protect these rights must be put in place as matters of both
urgency and priority. The debate was characterized by two distinct positions
maintained by developing and developed states. A number of states from
the African Group, OIC, and NAM made strong pleas for aiding populations
in the developing world that were facing disproportionately high levels
of economic insecurity.61 The Arab Group also noted that the financial
downturn threatened the rights of the most vulnerable. Bangladesh, Ghana,
Nicaragua, and Pakistan particularly emphasized that the crisis impacted
developing and less developed countries heavily despite having little role in
creating the financial conditions for the downturn. On the other side of the
debate were several states from WEOG, as well as Chile, which stated that
while they agreed that the financial crisis most adversely affects developing
countries, the crisis did not negate the primary role and responsibility of
governments to protect and respect human rights.62 The Czech Republic (on
behalf of the EU and other states) also argued that the issue of international
financial and trade regulations addressed in the resolution goes beyond the
mandate of the Council.63
on Combating defamation of religions,66 sponsored by Pakistan (on behalf

of the OIC). The resolution urges all states to provide adequate protection
against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation, and coercion resulting
from defamation of religions and incitement to hatred, with a particular
focus on Islam. Germany (on behalf of the EU) expressed concerns about
the resolutions emphasis on the protection of specific religions rather than
individuals practicing those religions, noting that there were international
laws in place to protect an individuals rights to freedom of religion and belief.
The EU further argued that the resolutions attempt to protect religions from
defamation, particularly certain religions, was not appropriate to the debate on
human rights and thus it would call for a vote. Canada and Chile expressed
support for the EU position which was further echoed by the human rights
community. India criticized the OICs narrow interpretation of the concept
of defamation of religion, stating that it improperly singles out one religion
as its focus and that the issue was best addressed under the rubric of religious
intolerance or the abuse of freedom of expression.
The controversial resolution was adopted by a vote of 23 states in favor, 11
against, and 13 abstentions. The vote reflected a familiar divide; the majority
of OIC and African states, as well as China, Cuba and Russia voted in favor
of the resolution, while WEOG states, Chile, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Ukraine
voted against it. Some African, Asian and GRULAC members67 chose to
abstain along with Bosnia and Herzegovina.
The resolution, The impact of the global economic and financial crises on the
universal realization and effective enjoyment of human rights,64 presented by
Egypt on behalf of all of the sponsors, called on the international community
not to reduce levels of official development aid nor impose protectionist
measures. It stressed that the financial crisis did not lessen the obligations
of governments from respecting their human rights obligations. Finally, it
noted the importance of open, equitable, predictable, and non-discriminatory
multilateral trading systems in contributing to the enjoyment of all human
rights.
In a joint statement following the adoption of the resolution, ARTICLE

19 and the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies described the concept
of defamation of religions as inconsistent with the right to freedom of
expression and the promotion of equality.68 Defamation of religion is
a concept commonly used by authoritarian and repressive governments
throughout the world to violate civil liberties and discriminate against
minorities. It has no place in the work of the Human Rights Council, said
Moataz El Fegiery of the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies.
61 Angola,
Belarus, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Kuwait, Mauritius, Malaysia, Mexico, Morocco, Nepal,
Nigeria, Panama, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, The Sudan, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, and Venezuela.
United Kingdom, Czech Republic (on behalf of the EU, Turkey, Croatia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro,
Serbia, Liechtenstein, Ukraine, Republic of Moldova, Armenia and Georgia), Israel, Chile and Switzerland.
63 Czech Republic (on behalf of the EU, Turkey, Croatia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Serbia, Liechtenstein,
Ukraine, Republic of Moldova, Armenia and Georgia).
64 A/HRC/S-10/L.1.
65 Canada, Germany (on behalf of the of the EU), Japan and Switzerland.
66 A/HRC/10/L.2/Rev.1.
67 Argentina, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Ghana, India, Japan, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mexico, Republic of Korea, Uruguay and Zambia.
68 ARTICLE 19 and the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, Human Rights Council: ARTICLE 19 and CIHRS Condemn Adoption of Resolution on Combating Defamation
of Religions, March 27, 2009.
62 Canada,
A11
REPORT
CARD:
2008
2009
Torture and other cruel, inhuman or

degrading treatment or punishment
At the Tenth session of the Council, the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Mr. Manfred Nowak, presented his
report which touched off a heated debate. At the request of Government of
France, Nowak presented his opinion as to whether or not the death penalty could
be defined as another form of torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment
or punishment. Nowak suggested that the evolution of corporal punishment
in international law, which currently is defined as cruel, inhuman or degrading
punishment, could be applied to capital punishment. He also evaluated the
compatibility of international drug policies with human rights law to which he
suggested that refusing or restricting access to medical treatment and prevention
assistance could be defined as torturous. Nowak came to no conclusions in either
area, but recommended that the Council further study both issues.
A number of states, including members of the OIC and the Arab Group,
responded negatively to Nowaks observations on capital punishment, which
they deemed outside his mandate.69 Pakistan (on behalf of the OIC) and
Sudan accused Nowak of violating the Code of Conduct for Special Procedures
Mandate-holders of the Human Rights Council70 (Code of Conduct), and asserted,
along with Egypt, Singapore, and Iran, that the matter was related to state
sovereignty rather than human rights. However, the EU, Switzerland, Brazil,
New Zealand, and Thailand welcomed his observations on capital punishment
and the recommendation that the Council investigate the matter further.
As a result of the debate, Egypt removed itself as a co-sponsor of the
resolution on Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment
or punishment: the role and responsibility of medical and other health
personnel, leaving Denmark as the sole sponsor. Egypt then called for
a vote on the paragraph referencing Nowaks report in order to remove it.
The paragraph was kept following a vote of 27 in favor, 10 against and 10
71
abstentions.72 The full text was adopted by a vote of 34 in favor, none against,
and 13 abstentions. All the states that voted against the reference, including
members of the OIC,73 China and India, abstained from the final vote along
with Senegal, Jordan and Ghana.
Discrimination based on religion or

belief and its impact on economic,
social, and cultural rights
At the Tenth session, the Council adopted a resolution sponsored by the Czech
Republic (on behalf of the Councils EU members states, Canada, Switzerland
and 24 observer states74) entitled Discrimination based on religion or belief
and its impact on economic, social, and cultural rights by a vote of 22 states in
to freedom of thought, conscience and religion appli[ed] equally to all people,

regardless of their religions or beliefs, and without any discrimination as to their
equal protection by the law. Pakistan (on behalf of the OIC) called for the first
ever vote on the recurring resolution in response to a paragraph in the text that
stated that legal distinctions between religious communities could be potentially
discriminatory. After expessing their opposition to this point, Pakistan, Indonesia,
and Malaysia abstained from the vote along with all other OIC members and a
cross-regional group of states.76 South Africa objected to the resolutions omission
of the justiciability of economic, social, and cultural rights, as well as its new focus
on discrimination based on religious beliefs rather than religious intolerance and
incitement to hatred. Based on these concerns, South Africa cast the only vote against
the resolution. Cuba abstained from the vote based on these shared concerns.
Working methods and procedures

In its third year, states continued to debate the Councils working methods,
particularly related to special procedures. Efforts by a number of states to censor,
unduly influence, or undermine the independent work of both the special
procedure mandate holders and OHCHR continued much to the alarm of the
global human rights community. In particular, the attacks on special procedure
mandate holders spiked to new levels during the Tenth and Eleventh sessions. The
Eleventh session saw the consensual adoption of a resolution sponsored by Cuba
entitled System of Special Procedures, which seeks to pressure mandate holders
into strict interpretations of their mandates and reasserts the Code of Conduct.
The High Commissioner also faced criticism by states for expressing her opinions
about situations of human rights around the globe, as well as for the geographic
representation of her offices staff.
favor, one against, and 24 abstentions.75 The resolution stressed that the right
69 Algeria, Bangladesh, Botswana, Egypt, Iran, Malaysia, Pakistan (on behalf of the OIC), Saudi Arabia, Singapore, The Sudan, and Yemen (on behalf of the Arab Group).
70 A/HRC/RES/5/2.
71 A/HRC/10/L.32
72 Abstained: Azerbaijan, Burkina Faso, Cuba, Ghana, Jordan, Philippines, Russia Federation, Senegal, and South Africa. In favor: All WEOG members, along with Angola,
Argentina, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Cameroon, Chile, Gabon, Japan, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mexico, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Republic of Korea, Slovakia, Slovenia,
Ukraine, Uruguay and Zambia.
73 Bahrain, Bangladesh, Djibouti, Egypt, Malaysia, Pakistan, Qatar and Saudi Arabia.
74 Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland,
Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, New

Zealand, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, and Sweden.
75 A/HRC/10/L.34.
76 Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Gabon, Ghana, Madagascar, Philippines, and Zambia.
12
Independence of the special procedures
La Rue Lewy of his position if he deviated again from the OICs interpretation
of his mandate.
The heavy focus on reporting by a number of special procedure mandate

holders during the Tenth and Eleventh sessions attracted renewed criticism
by some states on the integrity of mandate holders and specific threats to
their independence. Egypt, Pakistan, United Arab Emirates, and Qatar led a
coordinated effort to harass and intimidate Special Rapporteurs whose expert
analyses countered these states particular interpretation and views on the
subject matter of their mandates. The Code of Conduct was repeatedly utilized
as the basis for political attacks on mandate holders and as a means to infringe
on their independence.
Later in the session, similar attacks were leveled against Philip Alston.
Following his critical report on extrajudicial killings and impunity in Kenya,
Egypt (on behalf of the African Group) questioned Alstons expertise, integrity
and sources of information, as well as accused the Special Rapporteur of
violating the Code of Conduct for allegedly plagiarizing the report of the
National Human Rights Commission of Kenya. Brazil also attacked Alstons
legitimacy and personal character, accusing him of acting with prejudice simply
for questioning the credibility of the official data on killings in Brazil.
Of the 24 special procedures reports that were presented, the reports by Mr.
Frank La Rue Lewy, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection
of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Mr. Philip Alston, the
Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, and Mr.
Manfred Nowak, the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment and punishment were met with particular condemnation.
As was previously discussed, Special Rapporteur Manfred Nowak was accused
of overstepping his mandate after presenting his report at the Tenth session.
Several states77 asserted that his expressed view on capital punishment as a
possible form of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment
infringed on the sovereignty of states.
La Rue Lewys first annual report to the Council at the Eleventh session was
sharply criticized by several states for excluding instances in which the abuse
of the right of freedom of expression constitutes an act of racial or religious
discrimination as outlined in the Rapporteurs mandate.78 La Rue Lewy noted
in his report that existing international instruments already establish a specific
limit on freedom of expression and therefore, the right should be approached
with a positive view to defending itlimitations should not threaten the exercise
of the right itself.
Many OIC member states,79 along with United Arab Emirates (on behalf of
the Arab Group) and Russia, argued that this declaration and his failure to
report on abuses of free speech signified an inadmissible attempt on the part
of the mandate holder to reinterpret his mandate. Algeria, Malaysia, Pakistan
(on behalf of the OIC) and Indonesia also accused La Rue Lewy of violating
the Code of Conduct for joining a declaration with regional experts expressing
the opinion that defamation of religions did not accord with international
standards regarding defamation, and encouraging the UN General Assembly
(GA) and the Council to desist from further adoption of statements supporting
this concept.80 During the debate, India also attempted to limit the independent
working methods of La Rue Lewy, and mandate holders in general, by
narrowly interpreting a provision of the Code of Conduct on the use of public
statements.81 Pakistan (on behalf of the OIC) went as far as to threaten to strip
Many WEOG member states,82 along with Mexico, came to the defense of the
special rapporteurs, affirming that the Councils appointed experts should be
able to freely organize and exercise their work. They also argued that the Code
of Conduct outlines the freedom of mandate holders to comment upon human
rights questions relevant to their mandates, including resolutions previously
adopted by the Council which, in their view, are contrary to established
principles of international human rights law. Italy added that expressing
expert findings and concerns publicly was a vital condition for the effective
implementation of a mandate and, contrary to the claims of some states,
compliance with the Code of Conduct. In addition, these states asserted that
while governments are free to disagree with the views expressed by mandate
holders in their reports, it is essential that they continue to cooperate and respect
the independence of the special rapporteurs in order to ensure their effectiveness
as a mechanism of the Council.
Following the intense debate surrounding the reports of the special rapporteurs,
Cuba introduced a resolution that sought to limit the autonomy and freedom of
expression of mandate holders under the pretext of Strengthening the system
of special procedures.83 Specifically, the resolution aimed to restrict rapporteurs
from questioning their mandates. However, a backlash from states including
Canada, Chile and members of the EU eventually produced a compromise
removing the most restrictive elements of the resolution and including the
duty of states to cooperate with UN independent experts, thus enabling a
consensus.84
A group of 35 NGOs led by the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies
voiced strong criticism against the efforts by states to undermine the work of
the special procedures system through personal attacks and the intimidation of
rapporteurs.85 In an open letter to members of the Human Rights Council, the
NGOs wrote: We view these attacks and threats as fundamentally an attack
on and threat to the Council itself and they are severely eroding [its] legitimacy
and credibility. We appeal in the strongest of terms to act more responsibly and
respectfully in their relations with Special Procedures and refrain from all attempts,
by word or action, to interfere with the independence of mandate holders.
77 Algeria, Bangladesh, Botswana, Egypt, Iran, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Yemen (on behalf of the Arab Group).
78 Paragraph 4 (d) of Resolution 7/36.
79 Algeria, Malaysia, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Yemen.
80 The declaration followed a meeting of the Global Forum on World Media Development held December 7-10, 2008 in Athens.
81 India argued that under Article 13 (a) of the Code of Conduct mandate holders are required to include the response of the concerned
country with regards to public statements.

This requirement has typically been understood to only apply to the special rapporteurs report recommendations and conclusions, not press releases.
Czech Republic (on behalf of the EU), Sweden, Greece, Belgium, Denmark, France, Switzerland, Austria, Netherlands, Australia, Luxembourg, Italy, Slovenia, Norway, Canada,
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States.
83 A/HRC/11/L.8.
84 Canada disassociated itself from the consensus citing that the resolution represented another attempt to stifle and intimidate the system of special procedures.
85 Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, Open Letter to member states of the Human Rights Council, June 11, 2009.
82
A13
REPORT
CARD:
2008
2009
Independence of OHCHR
Conclusion
The third cycle of the Council also saw continued efforts to weaken the
independence of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
(OHCHR). As was seen in previous sessions, the issue of a balanced
geographic representation of OHCHR staff was again scrutinized in a
Tenth session resolution presented by Cuba and supported by a number of
members of the OIC and African Group. However, contrary to previous
resolutions, the text called for a regional rather than geographic balance of
the offices staff. High Commissioner Pillay noted that efforts to improve the
composition have already been initiated as a major priority for the office and
have subsequently shown progress. Pillay also pointed out that in terms of
gender representation, the office has an excellent balance; an achievement not
acknowledged by the concerned states.
The Councils third year was characterized by increased efforts to effectively

address country situations and continued resistance to those efforts. This
was illustrated by a decrease in the number of soft consensus resolutions
and an increase in the number of country specific resolutions adopted after
a vote by the Human Rights Council. On the whole, the EU worked more
systematically with a cross-regional group of aligned, democratic states to
strengthen attention to serious human rights situations through the calling
of special sessions and support for Council mechanisms. These efforts were
consistently opposed by states such as Egypt, Pakistan, and Cuba, which
often spoke on behalf of the African Group, OIC, and NAM to advance
troubling outcomes that failed to recognize ongoing human rights violations
and the obligations of states to protect their populations, or to provide for
accountability mechanisms, particularly in the cases of Sri Lanka, DRC and
Sudan. Russia, China, India and the Philippines maintained a similarly poor
record by voting against or abstaining on many critical country situations with
few exceptions. Many of these states repeatedly raised the issue of sovereignty
and non-interference to evade Council attention to particular human rights
situations and worked to restrict the ability of human rights experts to
independently address human rights violations.
In opposition to the resolution, Germany (on behalf of the EU), Canada

and Switzerland all asserted that it is not within the Councils purview to
exert control over OHCHR and thus, it should refrain from interfering with
the work of the office. As a result, all EU member states, as well Canada,
Switzerland, Ukraine, Japan and Bosnia and Herzegovina voted against the
resolution while Chile and the Republic of Korea abstained. The resolution,86
adopted by a vote of 33 in favor, 12 against, and two abstentions, included a
provision requesting the High Commissioner to report progress on the matter
at the Thirteenth session.
At the Eleventh session, the High Commissioner was inappropriately criticized
by several states for expressing her opinion regarding the protection of human
rights for all persons regardless of sexual orientation. Pakistan (on behalf of
the OIC) and Algeria asserted that Pillay should only limit her comments to
those issues which enjoy universal agreement; a claim which directly contrasts
the mandate of the High Commissioner to play an active role in removing
the current obstacles, and in meeting the challenges to the full realization of
all human rights.87 In response to Pillays continued calls for an independent
inquiry into the violations in Sri Lanka, India implied that the High
Commissioner had superseded the authority of the Council in accordance
with the agenda of some states or unrepresentative or unaccountable
organizations. A number of WEOG states,88 as well as Chile, Argentina,
and Israel, reaffirmed the importance of maintaining the independence
and integrity of OHCHR as an unfettered voice within the UN system. A
proposal by the Russian Federation to set up an inter-sessional working group
to discuss the Councils relationship with OHCHR was rejected by the EU
and Switzerland, which pointed out that the relationship is well defined, and
could only be affected by the GA since both mandates were established by GA
resolutions.
86
87
88
89
90
14
This pattern held with the exception of OPT, an issue which exhibited an
almost mirror-like reversal of the positions taken by states on these principles.
The role reversal suggests that considerations beyond the promotion and
protection of human rights inform state behavior at the Council. Across all the
country situations considered by the Council this cycle, Chile and Switzerland
maintained the strongest and most consistent record of supporting the
Councils mandate of addressing situations of violations of human rights.89
However, the European Union, Canada, Argentina, and Mexico also
demonstrated a positive performance across issues.
The Brazilian governments inconsistent record over the year reflects the
overall challenges faced by the body as a whole, and by individual member
states that collectively determine the Councils political will to carry out
its mandate. In a June 15, 2009 statement, Conectas Human Rights, an
international NGO based in Brazil, critiqued Brazils justification for not
supporting measures to address human rights violations under the guise of
international cooperation, a position advanced by governments opposed to
strong actions by the Council.90
Exposure of the facts and their eventual configuration as human rights
violations is a legal and moral imperativeit is a prerequisite for establishing
any form of cooperation, Conectas asserted. It only makes sense to
cooperate when the violation, the responsibilities of the State and the need for
change are admitted. The Human Rights Council is not, nor should it become,
A/HRC/10/5.
A/RES/48/141 para 4(f).
Czech Republic (on behalf of the EU), United States, Ireland, Slovenia, Germany, Australia, UK, Switzerland, and Norway.
Operative paragraph 1 of UNGA Res. 60/251 stipulates that the Council should address violations of human rights, including gross and systematic violations.
Conectas Direitos Humanos/Conectas Human Rights, Brazil at the UN Human Rights Council: Need To Review Positions and Overcome Ambiguities, June 15, 2009.
a settlement body for political disputes. Nor is its purpose to redefine global
geopolitics. [The Human Rights Council] represents hope that rights will be
guaranteed, particularly for the many victims who cannot rely on their own
State for the preservation of human dignity.
As the Council approaches its five-year review, the issue of addressing and
curbing human rights violations must be the central focus for states, one which
requires substantial efforts to ensure the Councils institutional ability to carry
out its mandate effectively.
2008-2009 Cycle at a Glance

The Council passed 121 resolutions and decisions, and three presidential
statements.
Of those resolutions, decisions, and presidential statements, 18 dealt
with country specific situations such as the Democratic Republic of the
Congo, the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Sudan, Sri Lanka, Myanmar,
Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea, Haiti, Cambodia, Somalia, Liberia and Burundi. 48 other country-specific decisions adopted the outcomes
of the Universal Periodic Review.
69 percent of the Councils resolutions were adopted by consensus.
The Council extended two Special Procedures mandates the Working Group of People of African descent and the Special Rapporteur on
the adverse effects of the movement and dumping of toxic and dangerous
products and wastes on the enjoyment of human rights.
The Council extended the country mandates of Myanmar, North Korea,
Haiti, Somalia, Cambodia, Burundi, Sudan, the Occupied Palestinian Territory, and discontinued the Independent Expert on Liberia.
The Council created one new special procedures mandate the Independent Expert in the field of cultural rights.
Six new special procedures mandate holders were appointed.
48 countries were reviewed during the Third, Fourth and Fifth 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.
Four members were elected to the Human Rights Councils Advisory
Committee, a think tank of the Council that works at its discretion.
A15
Albania
Algeria
Australia
OBSERVER STATES
Angola
Argentina
Azerbaijan
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Bolivia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Brazil
Burkina Faso
Cameroon
Canada
Chile
China
Cuba
Djibouti
Egypt
France
Gabon
Germany
Ghana
India
Indonesia
Italy
Japan
Jordan
Madagascar
Malaysia
Mauritius
Mexico
Netherlands
Nicaragua
Nigeria
Pakistan
Philippines
Qatar
Republic of Korea
Russia
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Slovakia
Slovenia
South Africa
Switzerland
Ukraine
United Kingdom
Uruguay
Zambia
MEMBER STATES
COUNCIL SESSION
INDICATOR
Voted in Favor of
Amendments to
strengthen the draft
resolution on the
Democratic Republic
of the Congo
10th REGULAR
SESSION
Supported the
Special Session
on the East of
the Democratic
Republic of the
Congo
8th SPECIAL
SESSION
9th SPECIAL
SESSION
Supported Special
Session on Israeli
Military Aggression
in the Gaza Strip
10th REGULAR
SESSION
Voted in Favor of
a Renewal of the
Mandate on the
Democratic
People's Republic
of Korea
11th SPECIAL
SESSION
Supported
Special Session
on Sri Lanka
absent
11th SPECIAL
SESSION
Voted against
no-action on
Amendments
to Special
Session draft
resolution on
Sri Lanka
11th SPECIAL
SESSION
Voted against
the Final Special
Session
Resolution on Sri
Lanka
11th REGULAR
SESSION
Voted in Favor of
an Amendment
Creating an
Independent
Expert in the
mandate on
Sudan
10th SPECIAL
SESSION
Supported
Special Session
on the Global
Economic and
Financial Crises
10th REGULAR
SESSION
Voted Against
Resolution on
Combating
Defamation of
Religion
11thREGULAR
SESSION
Supported the
Independence of the
Special Rapporteur
on the Right to
Freedom of Opinion
and Expression
Austria
Belgium
Benin
Bhutan
Botswana
Bulgaria
Burundi
Colombia
Comoros
Congo
Cote d'Ivoire
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Democratic People's Republic of Korea
Denmark
Ecuador
Equatorial Guinea
Estonia
Finland
Georgia
Greece
Hungary
Iran
Ireland
Israel
Kenya
Kuwait
Laos
Latvia
Libya
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malaysia
Malta
Monaco
Morocco
Mozambique
Nepal
Niger
New Zealand
Norway
Panama
Peru
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Spain
Sri Lanka
Sudan
Sweden
Syria
Tanzania
Thailand
The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
Timor Leste
Tunisia
Turkey
Uganda
United Arab Emirates
USA
Venezuela
Yemen
Voted against
(21)
Did not sign call

for special session
(14 members)
Against the
renewal (6)
Voted in favor
(18)
Supported by
signing call for
special session
(33 members)
Favored the
renewal (26)
Amendments to strengthen draft resolution

on the Democratic Republic of the Congo
Special Session on Israeli military

aggression in the Gaza Strip
Mandate on the Democratic Peoples

Republic of Korea
Abstained
(8)
Voted in favor
(20)
Amendments creating an Independent

Expert on draft resolution on the
Sudan
Voted against
(11)
Favored the
independence of
the SR to
exercise his
mandate (10
members, 10
observers)
Resolution on Combating defamation of

religions
Independence of the special rapporteur on

the right to freedom of opinion and
expression
Special session on the global

economic and financial crises
Did not
explicitly
comment on the
independence
of the SR (20
members)
Abstained
(13)
Abstained
(6)
Voted against
(12)
Final special session resolution on Sri

Lanka
Supported by
signing call for
special session
(27 members, 22
observers)
Voted in favor
(22)
Abstained
(7)
Voted against
(17)
No-action motion on amendments to

special session draft resolution on Sri Lanka
Opposed the SR's

independence to
exercise his
mandate (17
members, 4
observers)
Voted in favor
(23)
Did not sign call

for special
session (20
members)
Voted against
(19)
Voted in favor
(29)
Did not sign call

for special
session (30
members)
Special session on Sri Lanka
Supported by
signing call for
special session
(17 members, 20
observers)
Abstained
(15)
Did not sign call

for special
session (31
members)
Abstained
(8)
POSITIONS
Supported by
signing call for
special session
(16 members,
26 observers)
Special session on the East of the

Democratic Republic of the Congo
INDICATOR
During the Eleventh session, the SR presented his first annual report on the promotion and protection of the right
to freedom of opinion and expression. Debate on the report sparked division amongst states as to whether or not
Mr. La Rue Lewy had the freedom to exercise his mandate independently. Those states that explicitly accused the
SR of either going outside or beyond his mandate or violating the Code of Conduct received a while those who
directly defended the independence of the SR received a .
During the Tenth session, the Council adopted this resolution with a vote of 23 states in favor, 11 against, and 13
abstentions. The resolution expressed deep concern at the negative stereotyping and defamation of religions, with
a particular focus on the protection of Islam. It also noted with deep concern the intensification of the overall
campaign of defamation of religions and incitement of religious hatred.
With the support of 27 member states and 20 observer states, the President convened the Tenth special session on
February 20, 2009 to provide a forum to address the economic and financial crises from a human rights
perspective. The session resulted in a resolution passed by a vote of 31 states in favor, none against, and 14
abstentions calling for the need to create, among other things, a democratic international system to engage
developing countries in the global economy.
The amendments to the draft resolution on the Sudan was passed by a vote of 20 in favor, 19 against, and eight
abstentions. The amendments strengthened the text by creating an Independent Expert to engage existing UN
and AU mechanisms. The final amended resolution was adopted by an almost identical vote of 20 states in
favor, 18 against, and nine abstentions.
A resolution was adopted by a vote of 29 states in favor, 12 against and six abstentions at the conclusion of the
Eleventh special session. The resolution asserted the principle of non-interference in the domestic jurisdiction
of states and welcomed the continued commitment of Sri Lanka to the promotion and protection of all
human rights.
At the Eleventh special session oral amendments on the draft resolution on Sri Lanka were defeated by a no-action
vote of 22 states in favor, 17 against, and seven abstentions. The amendments were presented in an attempt to
strengthen the language of the resolution, call for increased accountability by the Sri Lankan government, and
request the UNHCHR to report to the Twelfth session.
The President convened the Eleventh special session on May 26, 2009 to address the human rights situation in Sri
Lanka in response to intensification of the countrys 26 year civil war. The session was supported by 17 member
states and 20 observer states.
During the Tenth session, the resolution extending the mandate on the DPRK was adopted by a vote of 26 in
favor, six against, and 15 abstentions. The resolution deplored the grave, widespread and systematic human rights
abuses in the DPRK. It also urged the government of the DPRK to engage fully and positively with the Universal
Periodic Review process in December 2009.
On January 9, 2009, the President convened the Ninth special session to address the grave violation of human rights in the
Occupied Palestinian Territory. The session was supported by 33 member states. A resolution was adopted by a vote of 33
states in favor, one against, and 13 abstentions deciding to dispatch an urgent, independent international fact-finding mission.
A package of amendments to the draft resolution on technical assistance and capacity building in the DRC was defeated
by a vote of 18 in favor, 21 against, and eight abstentions during the Tenth session. The amendments expressed alarm at
the situation; condemned acts of sexual violence; requested the thematic special procedures to provide coordinated
monitoring, reporting, and evaluation benchmarks, and report to the Twelfth and Thirteenth sessions. The final
un-amended resolution was adopted by a vote of 33 in favor, 14 abstentions, and none against.
The President convened the Eighth special session on November 28, 2008 to address the human rights situation in the
eastern provinces of the DRC as a result of renewed fighting. The session was supported by 16 member states and 26
observer states. It resulted in the adoption by consensus of a resolution calling on the international community to address
the root causes of the conflict and provide the government of the DRC with assistance to improve the humanitarian and
human rights situation.
OUTCOME
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. As of July 2009, DCP enjoys consultative status with the United Nations ECOSOC, which allows for more direct engagement with UN bodies
and mechanisms.
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:
Tracy Baumgardt
BOARD OF DIRECTORS:
Morton H. Halperin, President and Chairman
Theodore Piccone
Dokhi Fassihian
Robert Herman
David Birenbaum

2008-2009 Human Rights Council Report Card

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2008-2009 Human Rights Council Report Card

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL

HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL

About the Human Rights Council 2008-2009 Cycle

Bosnia and Herzegovina

OTHER CROSS-REGIONAL BLOCS

African Group (13 members)

Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC)

Dynamics of Regional and Cross-regional Blocs

Officers of the human rights council: 2008-2009

Vice-President and Rapporteur:

Analysis of Government Positions on

As part of its regular series of reports monitoring United Nations human

During the year, governments continued to speak on behalf of regional,

rights bodies, the Democracy Coalition Project (DCP) worked again to

Addressing human rights situations

HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL

The successful strengthening of the resolution was aided by Mauritius and

Democratic Republic of the Congo

behalf of the EU), received cross-regional support from 16 member and 26

to update the Council on the development of the situation in March 2010.

Occupied Palestinian Territory

and other occupied Arab

HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL

Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea

government to the promotion and protection of all human rights, encouraged

HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL

45 Azerbaijan, Brazil, Gabon, Nigeria, Senegal, Ukraine, and Zambia.

Other country mandates

2008 - 2009 HRC CONFLICT ORIENTED SPECIAL SESSIONS COMPARISON

OUTCOME FOLLOW-UP MECHANISMS

Invites thematic special procedures to urgently examine the east

Requests the UNHCHR to report on the violations of human rights

No follow-up mechanisms included in outcome.

HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL

Protection of human rights of

The global economic and financial crises

on September 18, 2008).

Disappointingly, the Council failed to reach consensus as some states

Combating defamation of religions

on Combating defamation of religions,66 sponsored by Pakistan (on behalf

In a joint statement following the adoption of the resolution, ARTICLE

HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL

Torture and other cruel, inhuman or

Discrimination based on religion or

to freedom of thought, conscience and religion appli[ed] equally to all people,

Working methods and procedures

Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, New

Independence of the special procedures

The heavy focus on reporting by a number of special procedure mandate

country with regards to public statements.

HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL

The Councils third year was characterized by increased efforts to effectively

In opposition to the resolution, Germany (on behalf of the EU), Canada

2008-2009 Cycle at a Glance

Did not sign call

Amendments to strengthen draft resolution

Special Session on Israeli military

Mandate on the Democratic Peoples

Amendments creating an Independent

Resolution on Combating defamation of

Independence of the special rapporteur on

Special session on the global

Final special session resolution on Sri

No-action motion on amendments to