Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
06GENEVA2337
2006-09-22 08:20:00
UNCLASSIFIED
Mission Geneva
Cable title:  

UN HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL -- REQUEST FOR GUIDANCE ON

Tags:  PREL PHUM UNHRC 
pdf how-to read a cable
VZCZCXYZ0006
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHGV #2337/01 2650820
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 220820Z SEP 06
FM USMISSION GENEVA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 1090
INFO RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK 1599
UNCLAS GENEVA 002337 

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PREL PHUM UNHRC
SUBJECT: UN HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL -- REQUEST FOR GUIDANCE ON
REPLACING THE 1503 COMPLAINTS PROCEDURE


UNCLAS GENEVA 002337

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PREL PHUM UNHRC
SUBJECT: UN HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL -- REQUEST FOR GUIDANCE ON
REPLACING THE 1503 COMPLAINTS PROCEDURE



1. This is an action request. See para 6.

SUMMARY
--------------


2. Informals, led by Swiss Permanent Representative Blaise
Godet, were held September 15 to continue discussions on
replacing the existing 1503 human rights procedure with a new
complaints procedure endorsed by the Human Rights Council.
During the course of informals, several delegations appeared
willing to cast aside the key limitations on the existing
1503 procedure -- that the allegation be of a "consistent
pattern of gross and reliably attested violations of
fundamental human rights," and that domestic remedies be
exhausted. Questions also arose regarding the need to keep
the procedure confidential versus opening it up to greater
transparency to the complainants, as well as if/how it should
be linked to Universal Periodic Review. There does not
appear to be any concerted opposition to a complaint
procedure. The difficulty will be reaching agreement on the
form it should take and its modalities.

ISSUES FOR DECISION RAISED BY FACILITATOR
--------------


3. Swiss Permrep Blaise Godet has been appointed the
"facilitator" of an informal working group on the complaint
procedure to be adopted by the Human Rights Council (HRC) to
replace the ECOSOC-mandated 1503 procedure. Godet referred
several times to the mandate under UNGA Resolution 60/251
creating the Council to "assume, review and, where necessary
improve and rationalize" Commission mechanisms, including "to
maintain . . . a complaint procedure." The first meeting of
the group, September 15, worked on the basis of a "checklist"
prepared by Godet. (Checklist was emailed to L, DRL, and
IO.) The checklist notes key characteristics of the current
1503 procedure, such as that the allegations must state a
"consistent pattern of gross and reliably attested violations
of human rights and fundamental freedoms," universality,
exhaustion of domestic remedies, and complementarity. The
checklist raises questions whether there should be more
transparency vis-a-vis the Council and complainants, whether
it should avoid overlap with other mechanisms, and how it
should be linked (if at all) with the Universal Periodic
Review (UPR). It also raises questions about the type and
number of bodies that should be involved, and their

composition, whether individuals or groups can submit
complaints, the number of steps in the procedure, and the
powers and types of outcome for the procedure.

REVIEW OF STATES' POSITIONS
--------------


4. The discussion on the paper heard many states calling for
improvement of the current 1503 mechanism, but with most
participants being unable to articulate how that might be
accomplished. Most criticisms of the current mechanism
focused on its "politicization," though a number of
delegations cautioned that the procedure works relatively
well and should not be changed drastically.

-- The EU wants greater transparency for the complainants,
impartiality, and objectivity in the process. It had not,
however, agreed among its members on any specific points or
recommendations.

-- China asserted that the original purpose of 1503 was to
address country situations first in a confidential way, but
that it had evolved into a kind of individual complaints
procedure. At the same time, country situations eventually
by-passed the 1503 process and went right to public airing in
the Commission. China would not tinker with the current
structure and admissibility requirements, but would return
the procedure to what China asserts is its original role as
the gatekeeper for consideration of country situations in the
public sessions of the Council. Pakistan largely agreed.

-- Russia said it had no strong interest in the 1503
procedure, but given the mandate from the UNGA to maintain a
complaints mechanism, supported keeping the existing
procedure with few changes. It called for better handling of
communications by the Secretariat, including more Russian
translators and better tracking of correspondence. Russia
underlined the importance of the confidentiality of the
procedures, arguing that this is a unique aspect of 1503
which allows states quietly to follow through with
implementation.

-- India, Japan, Colombia, Indonesia, the United States, and
others also stated clearly that the admissibility
requirements of the current procedure must be maintained in
order to avoid a massive flood of complaints. Argentina,
Chile, and Peru asserted, however, that such requirements
were outmoded and created unfair obstacles to the ability of
complainants to seek redress. They would create a
straight-forward individual complaints procedure with tough
remedies, including compensation for violations. In
addition, the Czech Republic and Norway called into question
the necessity of a requirement for a "consistent pattern of
gross . . . violations," asserting that such a standard is
political not legal and therefore is unnecessary for the
Council to consider human rights violations.

-- Several delegations complained that the OHCHR Secretariat
had a record of losing 1503 complaints and that many
applicants never learned the outcome of their submission.
The Secretariat stated that it had improved its handling of
the communications over the years, and had developed a system
for minimizing overlap with other mechanisms. To the extent
that the same claim is filed through more than one procedure,
the Secretariat now will only take it up in one. According
to the Secretariat duplicative filings have been reduced to
less than 5 percent of the total.

-- Peru and Argentina, with scattered support, argued that
the political role of the Working Group on Situations should
be abolished, with the entire process being turned over to
the independent experts, who could meet year-round under the
new Council structure, and make recommendations to the full
Council. Russia, China, Iran, India, and Japan maintained
the crucial role the intergovernmental committee plays in
vetting complaints before they get to the full Council.

CONSULTATIONS TO CONTINUE
--------------


5. Godet was unable to reconcile the various views, but
stated that it was clear the existing 1503 procedure must be
the basis for further discussions, and that delegations
seemed to want to improve it where possible. Peru maintained
that one could not rule out other models as well. Godet
ended by stating that he would be in touch with delegations
during the Council session and come back to the informal
working group with a revised checklist.

ACTION REQUEST
--------------


6. Department is requested to provide guidance to Mission on
USG goals for a complaints mechanism in the Council, focusing
first on the points in Godet's checklist. What aspects of
the 1503 procedure may be improved upon? Which aspects must
be maintained? Department is also requested to provide some
sense of how the complaints mechanism might relate to other
mechanisms, including those of existing treaties and the
nascent UPR.

COMMENT
--------------


7. The Department and Mission devote considerable resources
every year addressing mostly frivolous 1503 complaints
against the United States. The political nature of the
Working Group on Situations has been a source of frustration
when regional group balance resulted in cases being dismissed
or forwarded to the Commission based on regional
considerations rather than their merit. Nonetheless, Mission
believes that the 1503 procedure has been manageable while
providing in several cases for the Commission to take action
to address pressing human rights situations. With that in
mind, Mission Geneva would caution against opening it up to a
revision that could result in either an unmanageable flood of
communications or an overly restrictive system that would
limit the Council's ability to address serious country
situations.
TICHENOR