On 11 October 2022, the UN General Assembly (GA) in New York convened to elect new members of the Human Rights Council for the term 2023-2025. As soon as the votes were cast and members elected, diplomats and civil society representatives, as always, began to ask themselves whether the newly composed Council (which will sit from 1 January next year) will be better or worse than the outgoing one?
To answer this question objectively, it is instructive to compare the human rights records and commitments of incoming members (as measured against the criteria and election set out in GA resolution 60/251) with those of outgoing members. To assist in such an analysis, URG has used its recently published 2022 yourHRC.org election guide.
2022 elections
The 2022 elections saw 18 candidates vying for 14 seats across the five UN regional groups. The African Group, Eastern European Group, and Western European and Others Group were ‘clean slate’ elections (i.e., the number of candidates matched the number of available seats). On the other hand, there were (originally) seven candidates vying for four Asia-Pacific Group seats, and three candidates aiming for two seats in the Latin America and Caribbean Group.
A key initial question to ask is: were the newest members of the HRC elected based on human rights considerations?
As set out in GA resolution 60/251, ‘members elected to the Council shall uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights,’ and that 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].’
African Group
During the clean slate election, all four candidates were elected: South Africa (182 votes); Algeria (178); Morocco (178); and Sudan (157).
| State | % Special Procedure visit requests completed or accepted | % Communications responded to | Number of periodic Treaty Body reports submitted | Number of periodic Treaty Body reports overdue |
| South Africa | 40% | 33% | 2 | 3 |
| Algeria | 48% | 88% | 0 | 5 |
| Morocco | 73% | 96% | 3 | 3 |
| Sudan | 89% | 20% | 1 | 2 |
Of all AG States, only South Africa maintains a standing invitation to Special Procedures, however, the other States that do not maintain a standing invitation appear to have stronger records of cooperation regarding both acceptance and completion of visits and response rate to communications.
All AG States have overdue Treaty Body reports, and while there is variance in the number of submitted reports, all three States that that have submitted reports have submitted at least one report late.
Of the four States, Algeria has the highest level of cooperation with the UPR, while Sudan has the lowest. Both Algeria and Morocco were mentioned in the UNSG report on reprisals, and both responded to allegations.
Asia-Pacific Group
The APG was the most contested group: Bangladesh (160); Maldives (154), Viet Nam (145), Kyrgyzstan (126), Republic of Korea, (123); Afghanistan (12), Bahrain (1 – Bahrain withdrew ahead of the election).
| State | % Special Procedure visit requests completed or accepted | % Communications responded to | Number of periodic Treaty Body reports submitted | Number of periodic Treaty Body reports overdue |
| Bangladesh | 59% | 11% | 1 | 4 |
| Maldives | 77% | 44% | 5 | 1 |
| Viet Nam | 53% | 88% | 3 | 2 |
| Kyrgyzstan | 81% | 45% | 4 | 1 |
| Republic of Korea | 87% | 79% | 5 | 0 |
| Afghanistan | 82% | 11% | 3 | 3 |
Of the APG States elected to the Council in 2022, the Maldives and Kyrgyzstan maintain standing invitations to Special Procedures. The elected State with the lowest number of votes (Kyrgyzstan) has the highest rate of acceptance or completion of Special Procedure visit requests, while the State with the highest number of votes (Bangladesh) tied for the lowest response rate (with Afghanistan).
All four elected States are parties to seven core international agreements, but tend to report late to Treaty Bodies. 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, Bangladesh and the Maldives were mentioned in the SG report on reprisals; both responded to allegations.
In what may be a failure to take into account the election standards under resolution 60/251, the Republic of Korea, which was not elected (123 votes), appears to have the strongest record of cooperation with the UN system. It maintains a standing invitation to Special Procedures and has completed or accepted 87% of visit requests and responded to 79% of communications, and has submitted five periodic reports (including two on time) under the core conventions, and does not have any outstanding reports. It was further not mentioned in the report on reprisals.
Eastern European Group
The EEG was a clean slate, with the following results: Georgia (178); Romania (176).
| State | % Special Procedure visit requests completed or accepted | % Communications responded to | Number of periodic Treaty Body reports submitted | Number of periodic Treaty Body reports overdue |
| Georgia | 89% | 100% | 4 | 2 |
| Romania | 100% | 64% | 4 | 1 |
Both States maintain standing invitations to Special Procedures and have strong records regarding visit requests, with Georgia completing or accepting almost 90% and Romania 100%; Georgia has a stronger record of responding to communications, however, with 100% of communications responded to.
Both States have submitted four periodic reports under the Treaty Bodies, and Georgia submitted one on time. Georgia had a significantly higher rate of participation in the third cycle of the UPR than Romania. Neither were mentioned in the report on reprisals.
Latin America and Caribbean Group
In the second of two contested regional groups, the candidates received the following votes: Chile (144); Costa Rica (134); Venezuela (88).
| State | % Special Procedure visit requests completed or accepted | % Communications responded to | Number of periodic Treaty Body reports submitted | Number of periodic Treaty Body reports overdue |
| Chile | 70% | 73% | 6 | 0 |
| Costa Rica | 86% | 42% | 4 | 3 |
| Venezuela | 29% | 81% | 4 | 3 |
In the second contested slate, both elected States maintain a standing invitation to Special Procedures. Venezuela, which was not elected, does not. Both Chile and Costa Rica have strong records of accepting and completing Special Procedure visit requests, but Chile has a stronger record of responding to communications; while Venezuela had a lower percentage or accepted or completed visit requests (29%), it held the strongest record of response to communications of all GRULAC candidates at 81%.
While Chile has the strongest record regarding Treaty Body reports, with no reports overdue, both elected States have a strong record of submitting reports and have submitted reports on time. Venezuela submitted four periodic Treaty Body reports and has three overdue.
Both Chile and Costa Rica also have strong records of participation in the UPR, with Chile holding the stronger record in the first and third cycles, and both States having similar records during the second cycle. Of the three candidates, Venezuela has the highest level of UPR participation in the third cycle.
Neither Chile nor Costa Rica was mentioned in the report on reprisals; Venezuela was mentioned and did respond to allegations.
Western European and Others Group
WEOG votes received: Belgium (169); Germany (167).
| State | % Special Procedure visit requests completed or accepted | % Communications responded to | Number of periodic Treaty Body reports submitted | Number of periodic Treaty Body reports overdue |
| Belgium | 100% | 100% | 4 | 0 |
| Germany | 92% | 87% | 6 | 0 |
Both candidates maintain standing invitations to Special Procedures and have strong records regarding visits and communications. Further, both Belgium and Germany have strong periodic Treaty Body report records, as neither has an overdue report and both have submitted two reports on time.
While Germany has the higher rate of participation in the UPR, both have strong records of participation throughout the three cycles. Neither State was mentioned in the report on reprisals.
Will the new Council membership be stronger or weaker?
Objectively speaking, therefore, it seems that members of the GA did, overall, elect candidates with better human rights records and levels of cooperation. The main exception to this rule was the Republic of Korea, which was not elected despite a strong performance over time.
Subjectively too, it appears that the GA did a good job of returning a stronger Council membership for the term 2023-2025.
Those countries leaving the Council at the end of this year and that did not or could not seek re-election included Armenia, Brazil, Indonesia, Japan, Libya, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Namibia, Netherlands, and Poland. Again, based on human rights records, voting records, and levels of cooperation, it is estimated/predicted that:
- The African Group membership will be marginally stronger.
- The APG membership will remain somewhat the same, though perhaps marginally weaker.
- EEG membership will remain somewhat the same, though perhaps marginally stronger.
- The GRULAC membership will be stronger.
- WEOG membership will remain the same.
Share this Post
