Media Home
UN Web TV
UN Audiovisual Library
UN PhotoGeneral Assembly
40th Plenary Meeting of General Assembly 72nd Session
While some speakers welcomed the Human Rights Council’s efforts to investigate alleged violations in countries ranging from Myanmar to South Sudan to Yemen, others voiced concern that selectivity had begun to creep into its agenda and working methods, as the General Assembly began its annual consideration of the 11‑year‑old intergovernmental body.
Joaquín Alexander Maza Martelli, President of the Human Rights Council, presented the body’s reports on its thirty‑fourth, thirty‑fifth and thirty‑sixth sessions, as well as its twenty‑sixth special session (documents A/72/53 and A/72/53/Add.1), outlining some of the 114 resolutions, presidential statements and decisions adopted throughout the year. Noting that by the end of 2017 the Council would have reviewed 28 States’ human rights obligations under its universal periodic review mechanism, he also drew attention to its establishment of several new inquiry bodies and special procedures mandates over the course of the reporting period.
Among those, he said, the Council had created an independent fact-finding mission to examine alleged human rights violations by military and security forces in Myanmar, particularly in Rakhine State. It had also requested the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) to establish a group of eminent international and regional experts on the human rights situation in Yemen and mandated a new Special Rapporteur on the elimination of discrimination against persons affected by leprosy and their family members.
Noting that the Council had extended the mandates of the Commission of Inquiry on Burundi and the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic, he said it had also requested the High Commissioner to dispatch an international fact-finding mission to investigate alleged human rights violations in the Democratic Republic of the Congo’s Kasaï region. Additionally, the Council had urged the African Union to establish an independent hybrid court to prosecute those responsible for human rights violations in South Sudan.
Drawing attention to the establishment of a joint task force to propose recommendations aimed at helping bridge the gap between the Council’s workload and the resources allocated to it, he said the body had received reports of threats against those who participated in its work. Any such intimidation tactics were totally unacceptable, he stressed.
General Assembly Vice-President Michel Xavier Biang (Gabon), delivering a statement on behalf of President Miroslav Lajčák (Slovakia), described the Council as the main United Nations body dedicated to the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Spotlighting the Council’s importance in the context of continuing abuses and violations around the world, he said that, through its mechanisms, procedures and resolutions, the body gave a voice to all people, including those who were most vulnerable and would otherwise not be heard.
Several speakers during the Assembly’s subsequent debate echoed those sentiments, with the representative of the European Union delegation emphasizing that the Council had contributed positively to the promotion and protection of human rights worldwide. That body had helped countries with human rights challenges and with fulfilling its international human rights obligations, she said, voicing the bloc’s support for that work and condemning any attempts to undermine its independence.
Mongolia’s representative declared: “Human rights are pivotal in ensuring peace and security.” The Council’s role was therefore particularly critical in conflict-affected areas, where situations of human rights and freedoms were deteriorated and the norms of international human rights law were seriously violated. Describing the universal periodic review as one of the Council’s most important mechanisms, he underscored the need to provide States implementing its previous recommendations with technical assistance, capacity-building and adequate resources.
Cuba’s representative recalled that the Council had been established in response to the need to address double standards, political confrontation and manipulation in the work of its predecessor, the Commission on Human Rights. Stressing that it must avoid any recurrence of such practices, she also emphasized that the periodic review was the only existing universal mechanism mandated to comprehensively analyse the human rights situation in all countries based on the principles of universality, objectivity, impartiality and non‑selectivity. In that regard, she called on the Council to continue to speak out in favour of a more democratic and equitable world order.
The representative of Liechtenstein warned that not all the provisions in the Council’s founding resolution were being implemented in practice. Expressing his country’s staunch support for the body — and welcoming such recent efforts as its adoption of resolutions on the situation in Myanmar and technical assistance and capacity-building in Yemen — he nevertheless said its efficiency and impact on the ground could benefit from a review of its working methods and setting of priorities.
Eritrea’s delegate, speaking on behalf of the African Group, stressed that all human rights were universal and the Council’s work in promoting economic, social and cultural rights remained vital to fighting poverty and inequality. Rejecting the notion of any “hierarchy of rights”, or the promotion of one set of rights to the exclusion of others, he expressed concern over growing attempts to undermine the Council’s mandate by proposing that its report be submitted directly to the Assembly without first obtaining the endorsement of its Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural).
The representative of the Russian Federation was among those expressing concern over the Council’s recent evolution, noting that it was moving from a platform for cooperative dialogue into a space where some States sought to settle political scores. Emphasizing that the body must scrupulously follow the principles of universality, impartiality and objectivity, he also pointed to an increasing polarization of items on the body’s agenda that had once been dealt with in an equitable manner. No country was free of human rights violations, he stressed, adding that it was therefore unacceptable for some States to shame or label others.
Also sounding alarms over the Council’s selective practices was Israel’s delegate, who decried the baseless accusations and dozens of biased resolutions that became part of its global campaign to delegitimize and demonize her country. “Selectivity becomes a poison that eats away at the credibility of this body,” she stressed, noting that the Council continued to single out Israel under item 7 of its agenda. Meanwhile, the world’s worst human rights violators passed by without scrutiny, and some were even members of the Council.
Also speaking were the representatives of Qatar, Australia (on behalf of a group of States), India, Kuwait, Belarus, Iran, Argentina, El Salvador, Maldives, Georgia and Switzerland.
The Assembly will reconvene at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 7 November, to take up the question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council and other matters related to the 15‑nation organ.
