On 10 October 2023, the UN General Assembly (GA) convened in New York to elect 15 new members of the Human Rights Council for the term 2024-2026. One key question arising from the election, as every year, is whether voting members of the GA were guided when casting their ballots by bilateral considerations or by human rights principles – in particular the criteria for election and membership set down in GA resolution 60/251.
To answer this question objectively, it is instructive to compare the human rights records and commitments of incoming members (as measured against the criteria for election and membership set out in GA resolution 60/251) with those of outgoing members. To assist in such an analysis, URG has used its recently published 2023 yourHRC.org election guide.
The 2023 elections
The 2023 elections saw 17 candidates vying for 15 seats across the five UN regional groups. The African Group, the Asia-Pacific Group, and the Western European and Others Group were ‘clean slate’ elections (i.e., the number of candidates matched the number of available seats), while both Latin America and the Caribbean and the Eastern European Groups had contested elections.
The General Assembly elected the following members: Albania, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burundi, China, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Dominican Republic, France, Ghana, Indonesia, Japan, Kuwait, Malawi and the Netherlands. Peru and the Russian Federation were the only two candidates not elected.
As set out in General Assembly resolution 60/251, ‘members elected to the Council shall uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights’ and fully cooperate with the Council and its mechanisms, and when electing members, States should therefore ‘take into account the contribution of candidates to the promotion and protection of human rights [i.e., the required standards] and their voluntary pledges and commitments made thereto [i.e., the voluntary standards].’
With the Russian Federation running for a seat after its membership was suspended by the General Assembly in April 2022 following its invasion of Ukraine, many had called into question the Council’s integrity and future, recalling the fate of its predecessor, the Human Rights Commission, which suffered from a ‘credibility deficit’ as States sought membership to shield themselves from criticism, and not to reinforce the protection of human rights. As former Secretary-General Kofi Annan remarked in 2004, when the Commission’s shortcomings had become evident, ‘standard-setting to reinforce human rights cannot be performed by States that lack a demonstrated commitment to their promotion and protection.’ In rejecting the Russian Federation’s candidacy, member States of the General Assembly have not only demonstrated a commitment to the criteria set out in resolution 60/251, but also sent a clear message that will strengthen the Council’s credibility.
The following regional analysis of candidacies and results aims to shed light on the human rights records of the newly elected members. It is based on a scoring system created by URG ahead of the elections, which compares the candidates of each regional group on the basis of their engagement with the human rights system. This assessment awards countries positive points based on their cooperation with the human rights mechanisms (Special Procedures, Treaty Bodies, and UPR) and with OHCHR (whether they make voluntary contributions to the Office). Other assessing criteria include whether the candidates have ratified the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture (OP-CAT) and established National Preventive Mechanisms (NPM) under the Convention, and whether they are mentioned in the Secretary-General’s report on reprisals. For the latter, the analysis takes into consideration the number of mentions in the report, giving two negative points for each mention, which are offset by a positive point if the country has responded to allegations. Lastly, URG’s assessment gives five negative points to countries that have been subject to Human Rights Council resolutions under item 4 in the last four years and subtracts ten points if the country has had its rights of membership in the Council suspended.
African Group
In a clean slate election, all four candidates were elected: Burundi (168 votes); Côte d’Ivoire (181); Ghana (179); and Malawi (182). Both Côte d’Ivoire and Malawi were running for reelection, and both obtained similar support as in the previous election, when the former received 182 votes and the latter 180 votes.
Of all African Group States running, only Côte d’Ivoire has not issued a standing invitation to Special Procedures. However, Côte d’Ivoire is, after Burundi, the country that has received most visits from Special Procedures mandate-holders. Malawi is the country with the highest share of declined or outstanding visits.
None of the candidates from the African Group have submitted Treaty Body reports on time. Of the four candidates, Côte d’Ivoire has the highest number of overdue reports (6), followed by Ghana (5), Malawi (4) and Burundi (3).
All four States have participated in the three UPR cycles, with Ghana having the highest participation across the three cycles. Of the four candidates, only Burundi was mentioned in the UNSG report on reprisals, and it responded to allegations. Among the four candidates, Burundi is the only one that has been subject to a Council resolution under item 4 in the last four years.
Based on the assessing criteria outlined above, URG awarded the candidates the following scores:
These scores align to some extent with the votes that each candidate received, as Malawi was among the top scores and came on top in votes. However, for the rest of the countries in the AG, the outcome of the election differed slightly from their scoring: Ghana performed worse in voting as compared to its score in relation to the other candidates; Côte d’Ivoire came very close to being on the top of the group in terms of votes, while it had been last in terms of human rights score; and Burundi, which was by far the candidate with the least votes, had a better position in URG’s ranking.
Asia-Pacific Group
The election for the APG was also clean slate, and all four candidates were elected with Indonesia receiving the largest share of votes (186), followed closely by Kuwait (183 votes), Japan (175 votes) and China (154 votes). Of the four candidates, only China was running for reelection, and on this occasion, it improved its previous count of 139.
Of the four Asia-Pacific Group (APG) States elected to the Council in 2023, only Japan and Kuwait maintain standing invitations to Special Procedures. These two countries are also the ones that have received the most visits by mandate-holders. Notably, Kuwait has no declined or outstanding visit, while both China and Indonesia have almost 60% of declined or pending visits.
There are varied rates of ratification of core international treaties among the four elected States, with Japan leading (it is party to 8 core treaties) and China trailing behind at 6 ratifications. Except for Kuwait, which has no overdue reports, the other four States tend to report late to Treaty Bodies: Japan has three overdue reports, while China and Indonesia have two each. The APG States also have a varied level of participation in the UPR, with the Maldives having the highest level of participation over the second and third cycles.
Of the APG candidates elected, both China and Indonesia were mentioned in the SG report on reprisals; and both responded to allegations. Remarkably, none of the APG candidates have been subject to Council resolutions under item 4 in the last four years.
Based on the assessing criteria outlined above, URG had awarded the candidates the following scores:
These scores broadly align with the result of the voting, with the notable exception of Indonesia, which secured the highest number of votes in its regional group, while it had only come out third on URG’s scoring system, with a significantly lower score than the top two candidates. In terms of votes, the rest of the countries followed the same order as in URG’s ranking.
Eastern European Group
The election for the EEG members was one of the most contested and the one that drew most attention due to the Russian Federation’s candidacy. In this regional group, no candidate was running for reelection to replace Czechia and Ukraine as outgoing members. Bulgaria was uncontestably the leader in its group, with a total of 160 votes, followed distantly by Albania (123 votes), while the Russian Federation garnered 83 votes.
Both elected States maintain standing invitations to Special Procedures and have strong records regarding visit requests, with Bulgaria completing or accepting 100% of the visits and Albania following closely at 89%. None of the countries had declined or outstanding visits. In comparison, the Russian Federation has not issued a standing invitation, it has completed 52% of visits, and has a negative balance of declined our outstanding visits.
Both Albania and Bulgaria have clean records when it comes to Treaty Body reporting, with none of them having overdue reports, although both have not submitted any reports on time. Among the EEG candidates, only Bulgaria makes voluntary contributions to OHCHR, while both Albania and Bulgaria have ratified OP-CAT and established a NPM.
Based on the assessing criteria outlined above, URG had awarded the candidates the following scores:
These scores align closely with the votes that each of the candidates received, given that the Russian Federation’s scores were markedly behind due to the country’s Council suspension, mentions in the Secretary General’s report on reprisals, and item 4 resolutions. As expected, Bulgaria, which among the three candidates had the stronger record of cooperation with the human rights system, came clearly on top in its group.
Latin America and Caribbean Group
In the second of two contested regional groups, the three elected candidates from the GRULAC group received the following votes: Cuba came on top (146 votes), followed closely by Brazil (144 votes), and the Dominican Republic (137 votes). With 108 votes, Peru was not elected. Of the four candidates, only Cuba was running for reelection, and its performance was significantly lower than in the previous election in 2020, when it received 170 votes.
In the second contested slate, of the three elected States only one (Brazil) maintains a standing invitation to Special Procedures. Peru, which was not elected, has also extended a standing invitation. Peru also had the strongest record in terms of completed Special Procedures visits (73%), followed by Brazil (69%), while the other candidates were considerably behind (Cuba at 43% and the Dominican Republic at 40%). In terms of outstanding or declined visits, once again Peru and Brazil had the strongest records, while Cuba and the Dominican Republic had a larger share of pending visits.
When it comes to Treaty Body reporting, Brazil was the stronger performer, with no overdue reports, whereas its rivals all had overdue reports (Dominican Republic 5, Peru 3, and Cuba 2). Both Peru and Brazil have ratified eight core treaties, while the Dominican Republic has ratified 7 and Cuba 6.
Similarly, Peru and Brazil were the only candidates in their group that make voluntary contributions to OHCHR, the ones that have ratified OP-CAT and established NPMs. Lastly, both Brazil and Cuba were penalised in URG’s scoring system for having been mentioned in the Secretary General’s report on reprisals, and while Brazil provided a response to the allegations while Cuba has not responded.
Based on the assessing criteria outlined above, URG had awarded the candidates the following scores:
Among the five regional groups, GRULAC is the one where the scores differ the most from the outcome of the voting. Comparing scores and voting outcomes, Cuba swapped places, from coming last in URG’s ranking of human rights records to leading the ballots in its group. Conversely, Peru, which had a markedly stronger track record of cooperation with the human rights mechanisms, trailed behind in votes and was ultimately not elected.
Western European and Others Group
The election for WEOG was also clean slate, with France receiving 153 votes and the Netherlands 169 votes. Moreover, of the two, only France was running for reelection, and its voting count decreased as compared to the 2020 election when it garnered 167 votes.
Both candidates maintain standing invitations to Special Procedures and have strong records regarding visits and communications, with both having completed almost 70% of visits. However, France has 39% of declined or outstanding visits, while the Netherlands has none pending or declined visits. Further, both France and the Netherlands have strong periodic Treaty Body report records: both have ratified 8 core treaties, AND both countries have none overdue reports.
In terms of cooperation with OHCHR and the UN human rights system, both countries make voluntary contributions to OHCHR; however, France stands out between the two for having been mentioned in the Secretary General’s report on reprisals, to which allegations it has not responded.
Based on the assessing criteria outlined above, URG awarded the candidates the following scores:
These scores match closely the votes that each of the candidates received, with the Netherlands outperforming France on both fronts.
Highs and lows in the newly elected membership
Considering the results and the new members’ record, overall, it seems that the members of the General Assembly did vote following human rights criteria, as set out in resolution 60/251. However, a closer look at the human rights record of new members shows a mix of ups and downs across regions. In some cases, such as in Asia-Pacific, WEOG the newly elected members have a stronger record of cooperation with the human rights system. In EEG and the African Group the newly elected members have similar profiles as their predecessors, while in GRULAC, the new members’ records, and the fact that Cuba has won reelection, may raise some questions as to the criteria that their voters followed.
Image credit: Human Rights Council elections at the General Assembly, 10 October 2023. UN Web TV
Share this Post
