"SPECIAL PROCEDURES" AT THE COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

The chief purpose of the annual meeting of the CHR is to determine the human rights agenda of the UN, mainly through writing, debating and passing resolutions. These resolutions generally either condemn or praise activity in a certain field of human rights, cite specific countries as violators of human rights, and establish mandates or working groups for the further study of other human rights concerns.  Those activities which extend beyond the CHR's annual six week meeting are called Special Procedures.

Reporting back to the CHR is a crucial part of the duties of a Special Procedure, but in addition to conducting studies and writing this report, a Special Procedure may also assist technical cooperation projects and promote the recognition and protection of their area of human rights. The Special Procedures are generally divided into two subgroups: thematic mechanisms, which are concerned with a particular field of human rights, such as the rule of law or the rights of women, and country-specific mechanisms, which are concerned with human rights abuses which occur within a particular State.

While the mandate for each Special Procedure varies in terms of the length of the study and the area which they are assigned to study, the Special Procedure is generally either an individual expert, called a Special Rapporteur, Special Representative or Independent Expert, or a group of experts working together on an issue, called a Working Group. People appointed to the Special Procedures serve in their personal capacity and not as a representative of their country. There are currently 12 individuals working on country specific mandates and 27 groups or individuals working on thematic issues ranging widely from, for example, the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers to the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar.

Analysis

The work done by Special Procedures varies widely and their success is often difficult to measure. A recent example of a successful Special Procedure is the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture. After the Protocol was drafted by a Working Group of the CHR, it made its way through the UN system. Eventually it was passed by the General Assembly, opened for signature and ratified by interested States.

On the other hand, some Special Procedures meet with very little success. In 2002, the CHR passed a resolution calling for a working group to investigate the deteriorating human rights situation in the Palestinian territories, particularly Ramallah. Since Israel did not consent to the activities of the Working Group, they were unable to enter the country and complete their study. With other subjects, such as the right to food or the right to education, while the Special Rapporteurs do present annual or biennial reports to the CHR, the influence they have on the establishment of their particular right is impossible to determine objectively.

Often significant obstacles stand in the way of the work of a Special Procedure. For example, a Special Rapporteur may not enter a country to investigate unless they have been specifically invited to that country. This means that even if an individual has been named, for example, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Afghanistan, without an invitation from Afghanistan, the Special Rapporteur may not conduct work in Afghanistan. However, he or she may still try to evaluate the situation of human rights in Afghanistan from sources outside of the country. In addition, Special Procedures are unpaid positions which require a vast time commitment, requiring that the individuals appointed have outside resources that allow them to pursue their investigations. Despite these difficulties, the passage of a resolution calling for a Special Procedure demonstrates significant international concern about the topic which often balances the difficulties the Special Procedures may encounter.

The Special Procedures currently serve a role similar to an investigative reporter and advocate on behalf of a human rights situation. Unfortunately, the creation and operation of the Special Procedures is ad hoc and inconsistent. Moreover, it is very difficult to evaluate the success of most of the CHR's Special Procedures. In addition, the goal of a resolution appointing Special Procedures can be undermined if opponents ensure that the individual(s) appointed are ineffective. Even if the Special Procedure is effective, the CHR often will not follow-up on the recommendations of the Special Procedures. This inaction can devalue their work, especially if it continues throughout their entire mandate.

Recommendations

The CHR should draw up guidelines for the work of the special procedures; these guidelines should encourage the work of the Special Procedures. Moreover, the CHR should make efforts to integrate the results of the Special Procedures into their annual work. If a Special Procedure has been active and successful in a certain field, the CHR should take note of this and support it. If a Special Procedure has not been effective, the CHR should address this in their following resolutions. The process as it now stands is political rather than constructive, and no time is taken to evaluate why a Special Procedure has not been effective or how failures can be remedied.

Click the links below for further information about the Commission on Human Rights.

The Commission on Human Rights

A Brief Overview of the CHR

History of the CHR

Membership in the CHR

Participation by Civil Society

Agenda and Resolutions

Other UN Human Rights Bodies

Conclusion