EventsFeaturesImage galleriesMediaMFAT speeches20042005200620072008Media contact informationMinisters releasesPublications
Mr Chairman,
Canada, Australia and New Zealand thank the President of the General Assembly and the Co-Chairs for these informal consultations in Geneva on the establishment of the Human Rights Council and transitional arrangements to ensure its effective and timely creation.
We fully support the process to establish the Human Rights Council, including the consultative meetings and the current timetable. We believe that the process is open, transparent, and inclusive and the most appropriate way forward. Our joint paper submitted in New York last week provides comments on the options paper in greater detail.
Focus on Implementation
The work of the new Human Rights Council must be redirected towards actual on the ground improvement of the implementation of human rights. This is where the work needs to be done. The Council, with the ability to meet regularly throughout the year, as well as on an as-needed basis, should be better equipped to protect human rights, whenever and wherever they are threatened.
Our delegations have expressed a clear preference for a standing body. While there are differences of opinion as to the interpretation of the term “standing”, there is a great deal of common ground regarding the need for the Council to meet regularly and to be able to convene easily when needed.
We also support the emphasis on the implementation of human rights obligations, and believe that states, especially those wishing to serve on the Council should be prepared to discuss their own records. We hope for further discussion on how the proposal for a periodic review would work in practice.
Rules of Procedure and Methods of Work
Like both the Security Council and Economic and Social Council, the Human Rights Council should adopt its own rules of procedures. It could, however, be guided by the applicable rules of procedures of the General Assembly. It will be important to retain special arrangements to facilitate the participation of NGOs, National Institutions and observer States, along the lines of the CHR’s current practices.
In our view, it would be both most appropriate and practical for issues such as the Human Rights Council’s working methods, its agenda, decisions on its subsidiary bodies, and its rules of procedure to be left to the Council itself to determine. A new, elevated body requires a fresh look at how it does business.
We are striving to create a new body that will have new clarity of purpose, new levels of responsiveness to human rights violations and emergencies, and that is better able to help countries willing to do so to build up their levels of capability to protect and respect human rights. The right structures for the new Council will be important, but the real test will be whether as member states we can make the shift to a new way of working and a new culture of cooperation when the Council is established.
Transitional Arrangements
Mr Chairman,
Our delegations believe that transition arrangements should be pragmatic and realistic, allowing a smooth transition to the Council from the Commission on Human Rights.
We believe that the establishment of the Council provides an opportunity to review existing functions and mandates. However, the Council itself should undertake this task -- assuming and reviewing relevant mandates, functions and responsibilities. Therefore, during transition, priority should be attached to extensions of mandates and avoidance of any protection gap. In this regard, we do not believe it is necessary to have a final session of the Commission. There is no legal requirement. If there is to be one, it should be very short (one or two days) and procedural. The Human Rights Council should begin on the very same day that the Commission on Human Rights ends.
We believe that a smooth transition to the Council will require a clear timetable for its creation in advance of the scheduled 62nd session of the Commission on Human Rights. Therefore, we strongly support the current timetable calling for an agreement before the end of the year in the General Assembly incorporating the earliest dates feasible for elections for members of the new Council and its first meeting. In concrete terms, we believe elections should be held by the end of February 2006 and the first meeting of the Council should be in March or April 2006.
Conseil des droits humains
Finally, allow me to reiterate the proposal made by Canada, during informal consultations in New York, that the new Council be known in French as “Conseil des droits humains” or “Conseil des droits de la personne”. We have the opportunity to name the new Council in an inclusive manner which, as is the case currently in the other five official languages of the United Nations, would avoid any ambiguity with respect to the equal rights of men and women. Our choice of name should reflect as much as possible our fundamental values and principles with respect to equity. (A paper outlining the proposal is available at the back of the room.)
On behalf of Canada, Australia and New Zealand, I reiterate our support for the efforts of the President of the General Assembly and the Co-Chairs and thank you for this opportunity to bring a Geneva perspective to the process.
Thank you Mr Chairman.
