Scorecard / Graphic
ISHR has published ‘scorecards’ for each of the States seeking election to the UN Human Rights Council for 2019-2021.
To coincide with the #HRCpledging events in New York and Geneva hosted by ISHR and Amnesty International, ISHR has published a ‘scorecard’ for each State standing for election to the UN Human Rights Council.
The scorecards offer a quick ‘at-a-glance’ objective comparison of the candidates, focusing on their cooperation with the Council, their support for civil society, their engagement with UN treaty bodies and Special Procedures, whether they have spoken out in concern about reprisals, and whether they have established a national human rights institution.
This year, a new criteria examines whether a candidate has taken a leadership role regarding country situations of concern or crisis – more specifically, whether the candidate initiated or significantly pushed an action which has raised at least two country situations in a qualitative and informed way.
It is now more important than ever for the Human Rights Council to ensure that it is the legitimate, influential body that the global human rights situation demands.
‘If the Council is to fulfil its promise and mandate, it must be comprised of Member States that uphold the highest human rights standards and cooperate fully with the Council – as required by General Assembly resolution 60/251. Members must have a genuine commitment to promoting universal human rights and defending those who advocate for them,’ said ISHR’s Human Rights Council Advocate Salma El Hosseiny.
The scorecards and #HRCpledging events are an important contribution in this regard. The scorecards are intended to give a brief overview of the candidate’s relationship with UN mechanisms, and increase transparency in the elections.
However, ISHR acknowledges that data limitations and the need for objectivity mean that many of the criteria are concerned with form rather than substance.
‘For example, the fact that a State has accepted a high number of UPR recommendations says nothing about the extent to which recommendations have been implemented on the ground,’ ISHR’s Programme Manager and Legal Counsel Tess McEvoy stated.
‘We encourage these ‘at-a-glance’ scorecards to be read in conjunction with the more in-depth reporting on country situations and human rights record such as the world reports produced by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, and the election guide published by the Universal Rights Group,’ said McEvoy.
‘More importantly, we urge voting States to treat human rights considerations as paramount in electing members to the Council, and to prioritise fundamental human rights over political or economic interests.’
Voting on candidates for the Human Rights Council will take place at the UN General Assembly in October 2018.
Public pledges on a States’ candidacy are another valuable contribution. To date, the following candidate States have published a public pledge – Argentina, Austria, Bahamas, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Fiji, India, Italy and Uruguay.
Scorecards from 2017 are available here.
The sources and criteria for the scorecards are set out below:
|
ELEMENT |
SOURCE |
|
Previous terms |
OHCHR website, List of past members of the Human Rights Council |
|
Submitted a public pledge on its candidacy |
United Nations Documents Search |
|
Pledged to strengthen Human Rights Council membership and adherence to membership standards |
Signed the joint statement at the 35th session of the Human Rights Council presented by the Netherlands |
|
Committed to applying an objective, human rights-based criteria in addressing situations of concern |
Signed joint statement at the 32nd session of the Human Rights Council presented by Ireland, and by implication the joint statement at the 35th session of the Human Rights Council presented by the Netherlands, and/or otherwise made a public pledge to apply the objective criteria elaborated in these statements |
|
Played a leadership role on country situations at the Council
|
Taken collective action to fulfill commitments regarding country situations at the Council – set out in the joint statement at the 32nd Council session presented by Ireland and the joint statement at the 35th Council session presented by the Netherlands – by demonstrating leadership with regards to at least one of the following, resulting in significant attention on at least two country situations: a joint statement, a resolution or a request for a special session. *This includes any country situation in respect of which the State has played a non-public leadership role resulting in collective action at the Council |
|
Issued a standing invitation to Special Procedures |
OHCHR website, Standing Invitations |
|
Consistently responded positively to country visit requests (Less than 5 outstanding) |
OHCHR website, Country visits and special procedures *Country visits requests made more than 6 years ago without a reminder sent by the special procedures are not counted |
|
Sent a reply to more than 80% of communications received from Special Procedures |
OHCHR website, Country visits and special procedures
|
|
Accepted more than 70% of UPR recommendations |
UPR Info website, Statistics of Recommendations: https://www.upr-info.org |
|
Case of reprisals has never been highlighted in SG reports (2011-2016) |
OHCHR website, Acts of intimidation and reprisal for cooperation with the special procedures |
|
Spoken out expressing concern about reprisals |
Signed the joint statement at the 30th session of the Human Rights Council presented by the Ghana: https://www.ishr.ch/sites/default/files/article/files/reprisals_joint_statement_sept_2015.pdf And/or the joint statement at the 34th session of the Human Rights Council presented by Hungary: |
|
The State has consistently sponsored Council and Third Committee resolutions on human rights defenders, civil society space and preventing reprisals |
Sponsored more than 8 of the following resolutions: Human Rights Council resolutions 13/13, 22/6 & 31/32 (human rights defenders), 24/21 (civil society space), 12/12, 24/24, 36/21 (reprisals), 25/18 & 34/5 (renewal of mandate of Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders); General Assembly resolutions: 66/164, 68/181, 70/161, 72/247 |
|
Ratified 10 or more international human rights treaties and protocols |
Ratified 10 or more of the following international human rights treaties and protocols – ICCPR, ICCPR-OP1, ICCPR-OP2; ICESCR, ICESR-OP; ICRD; CEDAW, CEDAW-OP; CRC, CRC-OP-AC, CRC-OP-SC, CRC-OP-IC; ICMW; CPED; CPRD, CRPD-OP; CAT, OP-CAT OHCHR website, Ratification status |
|
Has 3 or fewer outstanding treaty body reports |
OHCHR website, Reporting Status
|
|
Has an NHRI in conformity with the Paris Principles (A-status) |
GANHRI, Status of National Institutions
|
|
Sponsored both the Council and Third Committee resolutions on NHRIs |
Sponsored both Human Rights Council resolution 27/18 and General Assembly resolutions 70/163 and 72/186 |
Local authorities have accepted a global civil society petition to place a permanent tribute to Chinese human rights defender Cao Shunli, a victim of deadly State reprisals by China, in a prominent location at the heart of Geneva’s international quarter.
A newly-released confidential letter by a UN Special Rapporteur documents the disbarment of human rights lawyers in China and the tightening ideological control over lawyers and law firms. The UN expert denounces disappearances, closed-door trials, harassment of relatives, travel bans, and other abuses targeting human rights lawyers.
On Tuesday 16 April 2024, ISHR delivered to both Geneva’s Administrative Council and its legislative counterpart, the Municipal Council, physical copies of the more than 1000 signatures collected in support of a memorial honouring Chinese human rights defender Cao Shunli.
