Human Rights Council members among least cooperative with UN experts

A review of the Special Procedures country visit database and 2025 communications data shows that a number of current Human Rights Council members* are falling short in cooperating with UN Special Procedures. Across both country visits and communications, several States elected to the Council appear unwilling to cooperate meaningfully with one of the UN’s central systems of independent human rights scrutiny.

High numbers of unanswered visit requests 

Data shows that some current Council members have accumulated high numbers of pending or declined visit requests over the past five years. Of the 13 States with 10 or more pending or declined requests during the period, nine currently sit on the Council.  

China records the highest number, with 21 requests still awaiting confirmation.

Other States with high numbers that also happen to be current Council members include Indonesia (18), South Africa (17), India (17), and Kenya (14). 

Among current Council members with high numbers of pending requests, India and Kenya have not received a country visit since 2017 or 2018.

Pakistan, also a Council member, has not hosted any visit since 2012 and still has 12 pending requests. By contrast, while Brazil and Colombia also have high numbers of pending requests, they have hosted five and nine mandate visits respectively over the past five years. 

The concern is even greater where the unanswered requests come from mandates dealing with grave violations. The Special Rapporteur on torture and the Working Group on enforced or involuntary disappearances currently face the highest numbers of pending visit requests globally, with 40 and 38, respectively.

The Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders also faces persistent barriers to access, with 18 pending requests and two formal declines over the past five years. When access is withheld from mandates addressing these violations, allegations cannot be independently examined on the ground, victims lose visibility, and States avoid scrutiny in areas where accountability is most urgent. 

Country visits are one of the UN’s most important tools for examining human rights conditions at the national level.

They take place at the invitation, or with the consent of the State concerned. When States delay or deny access for years, independent experts lose opportunities to verify allegations first-hand, and human rights defenders lose an important avenue for visibility and engagement. 

UN financial constraints have reduced the number of country visits Special Procedures can undertake from two visits to one visit each year. This is another matter of concern, as it means that mandate holders may not be able to carry out accepted requests promptly.

However, it does not excuse States leaving requests unanswered for years or declining them. States can still respond to requests, express willingness to receive a visit, and agree on dates later. 

Poor response to communications 

This resistance to scrutiny is equally evident in how States handle Special Procedures letters – known as ‘communications’ -, through which UN experts raise allegations of violations, request clarification, seek urgent action, or follow up on legal or policy concerns. 

In 2025, 15 States received 10 or more communications from Special Procedures mandates. Among them, current Council members Pakistan, Thailand, and India provided little to no substantive response.  

It is also worth noting that the United States and Israel received the highest number of communications overall and provided zero substantive responses, while the Russian Federation similarly dismissed inquiries. None of these States currently holds a Council seat, yet non-cooperation on this scale reflects a broader culture of selective engagement with UN human rights mechanisms 

Election pledges not matched by practice 

These findings sit uneasily alongside the commitments States make when seeking election to the Human Rights Council. Council membership carries a responsibility to uphold high human rights standards, and candidate States often present voluntary pledges and commitments as part of their campaigns. Unanswered visit requests and poor communication response rates raise questions about whether those commitments are being honoured in practice.  

Human Rights Council members must set the standard for engagement with Special Procedures, rather than hiding among the least cooperative.

To demonstrate genuine commitment to cooperating with the UN’s independent human rights mechanisms, ISHR calls on member States, especially Council members, to:

• Issue standing invitations to all Special Procedures, where they have not already done so.

• Respond promptly to visit requests within a reasonable timeframe.

Notes: 

1. This analysis is based on the official Special Procedures country visit database, reviewed as of 12 March 2026, and on 2025 communications data concerning selected States. For country visits, the analysis includes visit requests and reminders by Special Procedures mandates, as well as declines and postponements by States, within the past five years. Requests older than five years without follow-up are treated as inactive and excluded.  
2. Human Rights Council members in 2026: Albania, Angola, Benin, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burundi, Chile, China, Colombia, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Estonia, Ethiopia, France, Gambia, Ghana, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Kuwait, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Netherlands, North Macedonia, Pakistan, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, Thailand, United Kingdom, Viet Nam.