The Rise and Fall of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR)

“Transition Period”

By: Yadollah Mohammadi

History of the Commission

Following the ratification of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the  UN General Assembly issued and ratified several covenants, conventions and resolutions on various human rights issues. Before this, human rights related issues were referred to the Human Rights Third Committee of this Assembly, and its resolutions would be sent to the General Assembly for final approval.

Another UN organ that monitor’s the observation of human rights is the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). Chapter 10 of the Charter of the United Nations is solely allocated to the establishment, duties and work guidelines of ECOSOC. The subsidiary bodies of ECOSOC in human rights matters are: the Commission on Human Rights, the Promotion of Human Rights sub-Committee, and the Commission on the Status of Women.

The CHR was one of the seven functioning committees of ECOSOC, which was in fact seen as one of the main bodies of UN Charter’s human rights matters. In fact the Commission was established following the devastating effects of the Second World War, and to prevent blatant violation of human rights by states, on the basis of human tragedies. During this period on the development and promotion and protection of human rights, the CHR was entrusted to investigate themes that were forwarded by ECOSOC. One of these tasks was the investigation of human rights violation accusations. As well as this the Commission cooperated with other UN bodies on human rights issues. Other duties of the Commission included the appointment of Special Rapporteurs on different items, adopting decisions on the human rights situation of states, presenting recommendations and suggestions, and study reports were made and sent to the General Assembly.

According to paragraph 3 of ECOSOC second resolution of June 1946, authorisation was given to set up special working groups on various issues made up of international experts. According to paragraph eight through ten of the resolution, the Commission was given the task to create a sub-commission. The number of members of the CHR until 1990 was 43, and according to the decision of the Commission the number was increased by another ten. The membership was allocated in geographical order: 14 African states; 12 Asian state; 12 Latin American countries; 10 Western European countries; and 5 Easter European countries whose membership was for three years.

According to the work guidelines of the Commission, non-member states and NGOs were also permitted to attend the Commission’s open sessions, and make oral statements. But they did not have a right to vote. The Commission gave tasks to appointed human rights experts, as special rapporteurs, or special representatives who were usually appointed by the president and or with the consultation of the members of the Commission.

These individuals fell into two categories based on the type of work:

1.      Special rapporteurs or representatives for reviewing the human rights situation of a specific country.

2.      Thematic special rapporteures or representatives.

The ECOSOC Resolution 1503(XLVIII) of 27 May 1970, Authorizes the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities to appoint a Working Group consisting of not more than five of its members, with due regard to geographical distribution, to meet once a year in private meetings for a period not exceeding ten days immediately before the sessions of the Sub-Commission to consider all communications, including replies of Governments thereon, received by the Secretary-General under Council resolution 728F (XXVIII) of 30 July 1959 with a view to bringing to the attention of the Sub-Commission those communications, together with replies of Governments, if any, which appear to reveal a consistent pattern of gross and reliably attested violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms within the terms of reference of the Sub-Commission. For the first time in 1973 the sub-commission recommended the CHR to place the human rights situation of Chile in its working agenda. Following this in the ensuing years other countries human rights situation were also placed in the agenda.. some of the countries that were placed in the agenda in the 1980s include: Afghanistan, Guatemala, Tropical Guinea and Iran. In the 1990s countries such as: Iraq, Cuba, Haiti, El Salvador, Myanmar, Yugoslavia, Somalia, Cambodia, Sudan, Rwanda, Brunei and Zaire were were added to Commission’s agenda. Special rapporteurs were appointed for these countries to gather information and prepare reports and present recommendations, and these reports and recommendations were presented to the members of the Commission. By concentrating on fact findings these rapporteurs were more involved in finding solutions siding on humanitarian ways (without casting judgements). These rapporteurs also preferred to establish close links with each of the cases, depending on the urgency and need.

This is while country special rapporteurs rarely got involved in urgent action.

The CHR can be summed up in the following way:

Ø      The Commission spent the first two decades (1947-1966) of its work setting human rights standards. The two International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights, and Social, Economic and Cultural rights are two examples.

Ø      In its second twenty years (1967 onwards) the Commission dealt with human rights violations in various countries. To this aim thematic rapporteurs were appointed and working groups set up. In fact human rights situation in various countries were reviewed based on the human rights standards that had been set in the first twenty years.

Ø      From 1990 onwards the Commission reached the conclusion that countries that human rights violations existed should remove these violations. Therefore the Commission began to provide consultation and technical services and support. At the same time the promotion of social, economic and cultural rights – including the right to development and benefit – have been stressed as the basic living standards. During these years further attention was paid to the rights of vulnerable groups such as minorities, indigenous people, women and children.

Transition period

Finally after sixty years of ups and downs in 2005 with international consensus and on the recommendation of UN Secretary-General Kofi Anan, the opportunity for the promotion of the CHR to the Human Rights Council (HRC) became possible, and as a result a number of changes in the mechanism took place. Criticising the performance of the CHR Anan called upon governments to support this change. In the final session of the CHR Anan said, “If we do not reform our human rights mechanisms, then perhaps we shall not be able to gain people’s trust in the UN. We have reached a stage where the diminishing credibility of the Commission is overshadowing the reputation of the UN, and little drops of reforms are not enough any more.”

Thus after six decades of monitoring human rights observations around the world, and following increasing criticism, the CHR gave way to the HRC, which presently with a smaller size enjoys more power. In March 2006 with the approval of 170 countries, this Council replaced the CHR. Those that voted against this motion were the United States, Marshall Islands, and the abstainers included Iran, Venezuela and Belarus.

Most important differences between the CHR and the HRC

Ø      The members of the CHR were elected in proportion to regional allocations. But the HRC members are elected directly. Having two-thirds majority vote for applicant countries is a must. Although the election of CHR member states by the General Assembly does not stop human rights violating countries from becoming members, but it makes the form of work for countries more difficult.

Ø      The CHR sessions were held once a year and for a period of six weeks, whereas the HRC – as suggested by Kofi Anan – can convene any time that is necessary.

Ø      The CHR had turned into a political platform, and only a select few countries were subjected to investigation (i.e. North Korea, Sudan…). For several years, the Islamic Republic of Iran found itself in a similar situation. Whereas now, with the HRC, any given country can be questioned and monitored on human rights issues. Therefore according to the UN Secretary-General’s comments, no one has exclusive rights to be the guardians of human rights, and human rights violations are seen in both rich and poor countries alike. In fact the CHR has the right to suspend membership of those that are accused of human rights violations, and at the same time the Council operates under direct supervision of the General Assembly. This is why it seems that the Council shall be more effective and functional than its predecessor. The fact of the matter is that members of the General Assembly have various records with regards to human rights observations, and at the same time every member has equal rights. This is while with the exception of specific countries, it is unclear which countries observe human rights and which don’t. Because just like development, human rights has numerous branches, and each country’s views on the observation of these branches differs from the next.

Ø      The CHR had 53 member states, whereas the HRC has 47 members. The membership is as follows: 13 from Africa, 13 from Asia, 8 from South America and the Caribbean, 6 from Europe, and 7 from the rest of the world.

Ø      The membership duration in the Council is 3 years, whereas membership in the CHR was anything from 1 to 3 years.

Ø      In the CHR the violation of human rights by member states does not lose them their membership, whereas in the HRC, the member states are also closely monitored, and in the event if a member state going under question, at first the concerning state is given a caution, and in the event that no improvements are made, the membership of that particular state is removed. In view of this, those states that have a one year membership are placed on high priority for investigation of human rights violations.

Problems that the CHR faces

The observation or violation of human rights is such that it concerns every country one time or another, and there are different interpretations which cause complications in the practicality of the Council. Although it is easy to recognise the countries that violate human rights, but the determination of countries that are on the fence is difficult and most certainly something that the Council will face difficulties in the future because of, specially when the judge might be among the members, and not independent international institutions and organizations whose opinion has only moral value and not legal consequences.