Monitoring Policy Making at the United Nations |
| ||||||||||||
NGO Committee Discusses its Relations With the Commission on Human Rights.- NGOs - Global policy Forum NGO Committee Discusses its Relations With the Commission on Human Rights
UN Press Release
June 22, 2000
Committee on NGOs - Press Release NGO/366 761st Meeting (PM) 22 June 2000
Also this afternoon, again after another lengthy debate over a complaint lodged by Christian Solidarity International, the Committee decided to send a letter to the Chairman of the Human Rights Commission emphasizing the great importance attributed to the matter. The letter would also remind the Commission of the content of Economic and Social Council resolution 1996/31 on the relationship between NGOs with consultative status and the United Nations. The Commission’s Secretariat would also be requested to take measures to ensure that such incidents did not recur.
The incident referred to in the Sudanese complaint is contained in a letter to the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Sudan points out that the Economic and Social Council had withdrawn the consultative status of the NGO, Christian Solidarity International as per its decision 1999/292. Yet during the fifty-sixth session of the Commission on Human Rights held in Geneva 20-27 April, publications carrying the letterhead of that NGO had, on several occasions, been distributed to delegations, including that of Sudan.
Sudan’s representative said that her Government did not lodge a complaint against Christian Solidarity International, as its consultative status had already been withdrawn. It was complaining about the organization’s distribution of materials against her country at the Commission’s session. She underscored that members of that NGO had also harassed delegates of her country at that meeting.
(…)
Letter of Complaint by Sudan against Christian Solidarity International
In a letter dated 5 May to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Permanent Representative of Sudan points out that the Economic and Social Council had withdrawn the consultative status of the NGO, Christian Solidarity International as per its decision 1999/292. Yet during the fifty-sixth session of the Commission on Human Rights held in Geneva 20-27 April, publications carrying the letterhead of the NGO had, on several occasions, been distributed to delegations including that of his own country.
The letter stresses that distribution of publications printed on a letterhead inside a United Nations building and among members of a subsidiary body of the Council, by an NGO whose status was withdrawn, constituted a total disregard and disrespect for the Council, its decision and its members and those of the United Nations.
He therefore requested a prompt investigation into the matter to find out who allowed Christian Solidarity International to distribute its publications inside the Commission. He further requested that necessary action be taken accordingly in order to put an end to that pattern of irresponsible behaviour by the said NGO, and to ensure that the repetition of such would not take place in the future.
Response by Human Rights Commission Secretariat
In a note for the file, dated 31 May, addressed to the President of Economic and Social Council, the Commission’s Secretariat states that throughout the fifty- sixth session of the Commission, all efforts were made to ensure compliance with the Chairman’s repeated reminders. That reminder: that no papers could be distributed in conference rooms holding the Commission’s plenary meetings without prior authorization by the Secretariat.
With reference to the specific matter raised by Sudan, the note states that the Secretariat took immediate action following the complaint. Instructions were given for any material carrying the letterhead of Christian Solidarity International be removed from the “pigeon holes” reserved for delegations, as well as from the tables adjacent to the conference room holding the plenary. Strict control of the material left in such places was instituted by the Secretariat to the extent possible until the end of the session.
According to the note, the Secretariat confirmed that Christian Solidarity International was not accredited and therefore could not participate in the plenary meetings of the Commission’s fifty-sixth session. The Secretariat, however, had no way of investigating whether the distribution of Christian Solidarity International material was done by another NGO or by an invited guest during parallel meetings. What was relevant was that following the first complaint by Sudan, which was an oral one, and which led to the removal of Christian Solidarity International material from “pigeon holes” and tables adjacent to the plenary conference room and stricter control, the non-authorized distribution of material stopped.
A similar approach will be adopted next year, the note continues. Furthermore, NGOs will be clearly informed prior to the Commission’s fifty-seventh session of the established rules and practices. Emphasis will also be placed on the Secretariat’s obligation to report any activities that violates these rules and practices.
Statements
Opening the afternoon’s discussion, the representative of Sudan said that she hoped that the recently received responses from the non-governmental organization -– Christian Solidarity International -– could be circulated and the matter discussed during the afternoon meeting.
She said that her Government did not lodge a complaint against the NGO, as its consultative status had already been withdrawn. It was complaining about the organization’s distribution of materials against her country at the Commission’s fifty-sixth session. She underscored that members of that NGO had also harassed delegates of her country at that meeting.
She said her Government had carefully reviewed the approach to the investigation of the incident by the Secretariat of the Commission’s Secretariat. She was disappointed that the Secretariat could not say whether the distribution of Christian Solidarity International material had been done by that organization or by another that had been invited to the meeting. The Secretariat should be more vigilant and stricter in ensuring that there is no recurrence of such behaviour. She also reserved the right of her Government to report any future misdemeanors by the NGO to the Committee.
The representative of Cuba expressed surprise at the flexibility of the Sudanese delegation, but his delegation could not be that flexible, as the organization distributed the material during the Commission’s session. He would encourage Sudan to ensure that the activities of the NGO are stopped. For many years, the complaints that had been made to the Committee had been linked to events of the Human Rights Commission. The composition of the Commission’s Secretariat should be investigated. NGOs did have a right to take the floor during certain meetings of the Commission, but its Secretariat should examine each organization before accrediting it. The Secretariat should also make its accreditation procedures available to the Committee.
The representative of India said it was apparent that the Human Rights Commission did not recognize the presence of the Committee. He would like to know what the role of the NGO Committee was at the Commission’s events.
The representative of Algeria said this was a very specific case and it reflected a recurrence of a problem that usually arose at meetings of the Commission. When the Economic and Social Council took a decision to withdraw consultative status from an NGO, all the organs of the United Nations should respect that decision. The recurrence of such situations created unease, as any document could find its way into the Commission’s meetings. That body should also be made aware of resolution 1996/31 so that its members could understand the rules that governed the relationship between NGOs and the Organization. If they remained unaware of the regulations, the problem would never be solved, she added.
The representative of Pakistan said the Committee was discussing an aspect of Sudan’s complaint that could easily be solved by the Commission. The issue would assume a different character if the Commission was made aware that the NGO or any other organization attending its meetings had already had their status withdrawn. Therefore, he suggested that some time should be devoted to consideration of the latter at the next session of the Commission.
The representative of Cuba suggested that the Secretariat of the Commission send a report to ensure that the Committee’s mandate was being honoured by that body. The Bureau of the Commission was already performing its duty, he emphasized.
The Chairman, Levent Bilman (Turkey), said that he would inform the Commission of Human Rights and that the case had been seriously considered by the Committee. He would request that the Commission inform the Committee on its arrangements for the next meeting.
The representative of Chile said his delegation supported sending a letter to the Human Rights Commission informing them of the complaint by Sudan. It should contain no other request or information.
The representative of Sudan said that the complaint had already been sent to the Chairman of the Commission. The Cuban delegation had made a valid proposal as it was the mandate of the Committee to monitor the relationship between NGOs and the Economic and Social Council. Her delegation was not convinced by the response of the Commission’s Secretariat, because they believed it was the responsibility of that office to ensure that such incidents did not occur.
The representative of the Russian Federation said his country had had similar experiences at meetings of the Commission. It was also important to remind NGOs of their obligation under resolution 1996/31. The Committee could help the Secretariat by preparing a memorandum to remind organizations of their responsibility not to distribute materials by organizations that did not have consultative status with the United Nations.
The representative of France drew the attention of the Committee to the resolution, which only defined the Committee’s mandate and responsibility in very broad terms. If the Committee needed to send a letter to the Commission, all of its members must review that document prior to it being sent. Also, he felt that the Committee should not launch a formal complaint to the Commission about its Secretariat just yet.
The representative of Iran said delegations from his country at meetings of the Commission had also been harassed by members of NGOs. If a letter was being sent to the Chairman of the Commission, that issue should be addressed as well.
The representative of Tunisia said such incidents were regrettable. The distribution of documents by organizations whose consultative status had been withdrawn was likely to be destructive to the Committee and to the Economic and Social Council.
The CHAIRMAN informed the Committee that, should he send a letter, he would state that the Committee placed great importance on the matter. He would also remind them of the content of resolution 1996/31. He would let the Commission know the Committee thought that the matter was serious and would request that the Secretariat take measures to ensure that such incidents did not recur.
The representative of the United States said that the security officers could not be expected to examine every item that was being brought in to meetings of the Commission. He suggested that the Committee could request the NGO community to police themselves as a preventive measure.
The Committee then agreed to send a letter to the Chairman of the Human Rights Commission.
