Elizabeth Cassidy: The Double Standards in the Council’s Investigatory Missions

[Email subscription to blog articles]

Posted by Elizabeth Cassidy:
The Double Standards in the Council’s Investigatory Missions
http://www.opiniojuris.org/posts/1173800131.shtml


   The differential treatment of Israel and Sudan by the Human Rights
   Council in 2006 extends not only to the findings that its resolutions
   made (discussed in my previous [1]post), but also to the actions that
   they mandated. All four resolutions from the Councilâs four special
   sessions established investigatory missions, but they did so in very
   different ways. The three missions on Israel were crafted to guarantee
   sole and un-nuanced condemnation, while the one on Darfur was crafted
   to guarantee not only fairness, but deference, to Sudan.
   In all three special sessions on Israelâwhich dealt with Israeli
   military actions in the West Bank, Gaza and Lebanonâthe Council first
   found Israel guilty of violations and then sent out investigators to
   gather the evidence in support. Moreover, the missionsâ mandates
   ensured that they did not consider the ongoing conflictsâ full
   context, allowing only Israelâs conduct to be investigated and
   requiring that all other partiesâ conduct be ignored. For example, the
   mission of âeminent experts on human rights law and international
   humanitarian lawâ established at the second special session was tasked
   â(a) To investigate the systematic targeting and killing of civilians
   by Israel in Lebanon; (b) To examine the types of weapons used by
   Israel and their conformity with international law; [and] (c) To
   assess the extent and deadly impact of Israeli attacks on human life,
   property, critical infrastructure and the environment.â This missionâa
   Greek professor, a Tanzanian judge, and a Brazilian former OAS
   Secretary-Generalâvisited only Lebanon, its report censured only
   Israel, and its work, predictably, was lauded by the OIC and friends.
   Yet consider the same partiesâ reaction to another report on the
   Lebanon war. After the cease-fire there, four of the Councilâs
   independent human rights expertsâthe special rapporteurs on
   extrajudicial executions, the right to health, the rights of
   internally displaced persons, and the right to housingâdecided, on
   their own initiative, to make a joint investigatory visit to Lebanon
   and Israel. Their report dared to criticize both Israel and Hezbollah
   for serious human rights and humanitarian law violations during the
   war, and it even recommended that the Council âhaving addressed the
   conduct of Israel, . . .should also ensure that Hizbollahâs attacks
   are thoroughly investigated.â When this report was presented to the
   Council in late September, more than 20 OIC countries and their
   allies, including China, Cuba and the Russian Federation, lined up one
   after the other to condemn and reject it. Only Canada, Switzerland,
   Finland (for the EU), and non-members Chile and the United States,
   defended the four rapporteursâ attempt at balance.
   In contrast to the resolutions against Israel, the special session
   resolution on Sudan did not find any human rights or humanitarian law
   violations, by any party, in Darfur, but only a serious âsituation.â
   The investigatory mission was tasked âto assess the human rights
   situation in Darfur and the needs of the Sudan in this regardâ and, in
   doing so, âto consult as appropriateâ with the government of Sudan.
   Moreover, the Council Presidentâs selection of the missionâs members
   required consultation with Council membersâa majority of which had
   fought off any criticism of the Sudanese government. As a result,
   unlike any previous mission, the Darfur assessment missionâs six
   members included the Geneva permanent representatives of two Council
   member states: the Ambassadors of Gabon and Indonesia, both of whom
   have a record of speaking and voting in Sudanâs defense.
   Nevertheless, even after obtaining these concessions, Sudan reneged on
   its representations that it accepted the resolution and would admit
   the assessment team. The team did travel to Ethiopia and Chad but the
   Khartoum government denied it visas, reportedly due to its objections
   to one team memberâa professor and former acting UN High Commissioner
   for Human Rights who, when in the UN position, had had the temerity to
   criticize Sudan.
   The Darfur assessment team will present its [2]report, which was
   released yesterday, to the Council on Friday. Despite all the
   machinations by Khartoum and its allies, the report is strong and
   specific, finding âgross and systematic violations of human rights and
   grave breaches of international humanitarian law,â including war
   crimes and crimes against humanity, by the Sudanese government, its
   allied militias, and rebel movements. Apparently, aside from in
   certain groups in the Council, it is quite difficult to find people
   willing to explain away the ongoing atrocities in Darfur.
   The Indonesian Ambassador quit the Darfur team over disputes with the
   other members as to the findings, and it is expected that the OIC will
   reject the report. It is not yet certainâalthough given past events,
   it seems probableâthat the OIC will be able to keep the entire African
   and Asian Groups, and thereby the Councilâs majority, with it this
   time.

References

   1. http://www.opiniojuris.org/posts/1173785718.shtml
   2. http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/4session/A-HRC-4-80.doc