The UN's human rights system has remarkably evolved since 1945. The human rights commission was busy in the first two decades in setting the standards of human rights. Then, gradually the Commission has established a variety of mechanisms that enabled member states to deal with many human rights issues worldwide. The special procedures have enriched the system by providing more opportunities for NGOs and individuals to interact with the UN's human rights system and communicate their human rights concerns. Currently, there are thirty thematic procedures covering diverse human rights issues. Addition to other eight mandates holders who are concerned with specific countries.
Not all functions of the special procedures are performed effectively. The mandate holders have become a source of analyses and information on the main human rights problems in the world. They have also made very important efforts in clarifying the application of human rights law. Their communications and urgent actions to governments have provided NGOs and human rights defenders with a universal instrument for human rights advocacy on the local level. However, the success of the work of special procedures to change human rights in the ground is highly conditioned on the cooperation of the concerned states, and the political support of the member states of the Human Rights Council to enforce the recommendations and the opinions of the mandate holders otherwise the whole system will continue to act in recommendatory and dialogic way as Henry Steiner described the international human rights system in his work on sovereignty and international institutions.
It is obvious that the special procedures have become under attack by states since the beginning of their work in 1980. States usually refuse to cooperate with the mandate holders. In case of field missions, states attempt to control their mandate and limit their sources of information. Many states also challenge the credibility of the information and analyses that have been provided by the mandate holders. The newly established human rights council was tasked to review and where necessary improve the mandates of the special procedures. During this process, many states struggled to undermine the work modalities of the mandate holders. For instance, a proposal to cancel country mandates was raised during this process, and the African group has proposed a controversial code of conduct which included several limitations and restrictions over the work of the mandate holders.
The reports of the thematic special rapproteurs play actually a crucial role in explaining and developing human rights standards. The thematic mandate holders thoroughly study the effective means of applying human rights by addressing the different political, legal and cultural challenges and suggesting policies to face these challenges. As we have seen in the readings, the report of the Special Rapportuer on Adequate Housing which presented to the Human Rights Council in 2006 has dealt with important issues related to the right of housing, such as the adequate housing and land and property concerns, the natural disaster and humanitarian emergencies and housing finance for the very poor. In 2007, the Expert on Human Rights Defenders has suggested a group of standards relating to the independence and freedom of human rights defenders. The work of the Special Rapporteur on human rights While Combating Terrorism timely engaged with the concerns of violating rights under the name of security and the consequences of the global war against terrorism on the respect of human rights all over the world. It also helped in understanding the legal interpretation of the conditions of derogation provisions in the international human rights law.
The other technique that is adopted by special Rapporteurs is the communications with governments whether in the form of "alleged letters, requesting governments to respond to allegations or urgent actions, requesting governments to take immediate action to prevent or mitigate a violation." The governments usually don't provide the mandate holders with sufficient answers, and sometimes even refuse their actions. Neither the Human Rights Commission nor the newly Human Rights Council have had any means to ensure the governments constructive cooperation with the special procedures. Consequently, the powers of the mandate holders to improve human rights situation in the ground in the concerned states are very limited. The readings have highlighted several examples to show states lack of cooperation with the mandate holders. I will add another example from Egypt which like many other countries in the Arab region has refused to give permission for special Rapporteurs to conduct field missions. In few cases, it accepted the request of visits but after putting tough conditions on the mandate of the visit and the mechanisms of the follow up to ensure its full control over the missions and the following reports. Moreover, the Egyptian government in some cases challenged the right of the special Rapporteurs to send communications with allegations of human rights violations to governments considering that an interference on the internal affairs of states. For instance, when the Special Rapprotuer on terrorism sent a communication to the Egyptian government expressing his concerns about the latest constitutional amendment which adopted anti terrorism clauses that limited the constitutional human rights guarantees, the government considered this allegation "as unwarranted intervention in the functions and operations of the legislative organs of the State, which have totally conformed to constitutional and legal parameters. The Government believe[d] that it is outside the Special Rapporteur’s mandate to intervene in the national debate on a matter of constitutional amendments which have been decided upon by the Egyptian people, through a democratic process of national referendum."
To overcome the setbacks of the special procedures, Amnesty International recommended that the human rights council should regularly evaluate how states cooperate with the special procedures and should develop measures to encourage all states to do so and considering the level of states cooperation with the UN's experts in the elections of the member states of the Human Rights Council. The report also urged the Council to "develop a procedure so that states which persistently ignore requests to visit by the Special Procedures, including as part of urgent appeal, are asked to account for their actions."
In spite of the high expectations that were expressed by human rights defenders during the establishment of the Human Rights Council to overcome the limitations of the old Human Rights Commission particularly in relation to the special procedures, the new Council has not made any significant progress to strengthen the impact of the special procedures. On the contrary, the mandate holders have become under unprecedented criticism and attack from member states. In 2007 and within the negotiations of the institutional building of the human rights council, the country mandates of Cuba and Belarus were omitted despite the deterioration of human rights situations in the two states. In 2008, the council refused to renew the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the Republic of Congo. In 2009, there was a strong battle in the council to renew the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Sudan which in the end continued under the tile of independent expert. Moreover, "the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression was altered to monitor instances of undesirable speech, rather than exclusively focusing on impediments to freedom of expression." The renewal of the mandates of the special rapproteurs on human rights defenders and arbitrarily execution and extrajudicial killing faced severe resistance from many states which mostly have poor human rights records.
Finally, the effectiveness of the special procedures requires strong political support from the member states of the Human Rights Council to ensure the positive engagement of concerned states. The special procedures have been under attack since its establishment in 1980. Unfortunately, this attack has become more intense in the newly Human Rights Council.
No comments:
Post a Comment