Report on the 61st session of the Human Rights Council

Quick summary

The 61st regular session of the Human Rights Council (HRC61) was held from Monday, 23 February to Tuesday 31 March 2026.
UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk delivered a global update to the Human Rights Council on 27 February 2026.
Six panel debates were held during the session.
More than 80 reports under the Council’s various agenda items were considered.
Seventeen new Special Procedures mandate-holders were appointed to the following mandates: SR on adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living, and on the right to non-discrimination in this context (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), SR on contemporary forms of slavery and trafficking in persons (New Zealand), SR on extreme poverty and human rights (Spain), SR on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights (State of Palestine), SR on the right to food (Colombia), SR on the sale, sexual exploitation and sexual abuse of children (Japan), SR on the situation of human rights defenders (Colombia), SR on the situation of human rights in Cambodia (United States of America), SR on the situation of human rights in Myanmar (United States of America), IE on the enjoyment of all human rights by older persons (Slovenia), Two members to the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (from the Asia-Pacific Group and the Arctic), Four members to the Expert Mechanism on the Right to Development (from the African Group, the Asia-Pacific Group, the Eastern European Group, and from the Western European and Others Group), and One member to the Working Group of Experts on the People of African Descent (from the Asia-Pacific Group).
The outcome reports of the UPR Working Group were adopted for the following 13 States: Andorra, Belarus, Bulgaria, Croatia, Honduras, Jamaica, Liberia, Libya, Malawi, the Maldives, the Marshall Islands, Mongolia, and Panama.
38 texts (38 resolutions) were considered by the Council. This represents a 2,6% decrease in the number of adopted texts compared to one year prior (HRC58). Of the 38 adopted texts, 28 were adopted by consensus (81%), 10 by a recorded vote (19%), and none were rejected.

High Commissioner’s briefing

On 27 February 2026, the High Commissioner for Human Rights, H.E. Mr. Volker Türk, delivered an oral update on the activities of his Office and recent human rights developments. He began by reflecting on the question of power – who holds it, how it is shifting, and how it will evolve – and argued that for people around the world, power should serve their fundamental human needs. He explained that when leaders fail to uphold human rights, public trust erodes, and power is used to exploit and dominate; he stressed that human rights act as essential constraints on power and ensure that it is exercised in line with the will and dignity of people.

Mr. Türk warned that the world ‘really is becoming a more dangerous place’ due to the proliferation and normalisation of armed conflicts and atrocity crimes, alongside the erosion of institutions designed to protect the world’s population. He drew attention to ‘blatant’ violations of international law in Sudan, Ukraine, the Occupied Palestinian Territory, and Myanmar. He further pointed to the serious humanitarian situations in Yemen and Ethiopia, and condemned the hostilities and Israeli strikes on Syria and Lebanon which have harmed hundreds of civilians. He called for urgent action to uphold international law and protect civilians in conflict, notably by halting arms transfers where there is a risk they will be used to commit violations, tackling hate speech, strengthening accountability through investigations and prosecutions, and promoting human rights-based confidence-building measures to support peace. He added that his Office is developing and advancing these measures around the world, such as in Ukraine, Sudan, Venezuela, Thailand and Cambodia.

Regarding the Islamic Republic of Iran, the High Commissioner noted that the situation remains volatile following the crackdown against protestors in January 2026, expressing alarm about the reports of death sentences linked to the protests, including against children, and called for independent investigations, fair trials, and an immediate moratorium on the death penalty.

Mr. Türk warned that authoritarian governments are using a common playbook to consolidate power: criminalising dissent, restricting and controlling information, targeting civil society, and undermining judicial independence while scapegoating minorities. He outlined the ways in which this trend is reflected globally, firstly highlighting the militarisation of law enforcement in the Sahel, El Salvador, Ecuador, the United States of America, Cameroon, Uganda, and Guinea. He expressed further concern about political violence and threats to democratic processes in Colombia, Peru, Benin, Ethiopia, and Nepal in the run-up to national elections, and welcomed the peaceful conduct of recent elections in Bangladesh.

He also warned of the continued shrinking civic space worldwide, with governments increasingly targeting activists, civil society, and free and independent media, noting in particular the high number of journalists killed globally and the widespread impunity for such crimes. He condemned the suppression of civil society, detention of activists, and restrictions of fundamental freedoms in Belarus, Egypt, India, the Russian Federation, Tunisia, Türkiye, China, and Sri Lanka under the pretext of counter-terrorism and national security, as well as the detention of civil society, lawyers, and human rights defenders in Pakistan and Venezuela.

The High Commissioner highlighted the persistent discrimination and attacks against minorities worldwide, while States’ commitment to address and prevent these abuses is waning. He expressed concern about the discrimination against people of African descent, Indigenous Peoples, migrants and refugees, LGBTIQ+ persons, and Roma communities, as well as rising religious hatred. He was particularly critical of the European Union and European States’ approach to migration issues, noting that proposed new policies on the return of migrants risk violating their economic and social rights. Mr. Türk went on to underscore the mounting threats to women’s and girls’ rights, and the increasing prevalence of violence against women, femicide, and misogyny and online attacks against women in public life. He also mentioned the Pelicot case and the Epstein files, stressing that such abuse is ‘enabled by social systems that silence women and girls, and insulate powerful men from accountability.’

The High Commissioner then spoke about human rights economies and rising inequalities between and within countries. He warned that the 2030 Agenda is ‘alarmingly off-track,’ with progress in some areas even reversing, in part due to cuts to development aid. He criticised the growing concentration of wealth among the world’s richest, while poverty and suffering around the globe increases; he attributed this to governments’ lack of political will to invest in human rights and sustainable development, pointing out, for example, that many national tax systems favour the wealthy while failing to protect the most vulnerable. In this context, he urged stronger integration of human rights into business practices, fiscal policies, and anti-corruption efforts.

Turning to the triple planetary crisis, Mr. Türk criticised global shortsightedness and failure to take decisive climate action, including with regards to phasing out fossil fuels. He emphasised the importance of international cooperation and urgent action in order to limit warming and to safeguard people’s human rights, especially those living in Small Island Developing States. ‘Thirty to fifty years from now, could today’s inadequate response be considered ecocide, or even a crime against humanity?’ he asked.

On the subject of artificial intelligence, Mr. Türk recalled his earlier musings about power, noting that the reins of AI companies are held by a few billionaires who wield ‘enormous power over the forces reshaping societies.’ He expressed concern about the increasing use of AI in armed conflict, its potential to undermine democratic processes, and the risks it poses to individuals’ online safety. The High Commissioner stressed that ensuring AI systems are compatible with human rights will require robust regulations, oversight, and accountability, adding that stronger incentives are needed to ensure companies develop AI that serves the public good rather than purely profit-driven interests.

The High Commissioner ended his speech by calling for greater international solidarity, and announced the launch of his Office’s Global Alliance for Human Rights, which he said will ‘represent the quiet majority who strive for a fairer, more peaceful and compassionate world.’

Panel discussions

A total of six panel discussions were held during the 61st session of the Human Rights Council.

1. Annual high-level panel discussion on human rights mainstreaming: ‘Role of new and emerging digital technologies in preventing and eliminating female genital mutilation’

Dr. Pascale Allotey, Director of the Department of Sexual, Reproductive, Maternal, Child and Adolescent Health and Ageing, including the Special Programme in Human Reproduction at the World Health Organization, spoke about the urgency of eradicating female genital mutilation (FGM) in order to guarantee the enjoyment of sexual and reproductive health rights for all women and girls worldwide. She refuted misconceptions about the safety of the practice and its supposed religious underpinnings and stressed that FGM is ‘solidly [grounded] in gender inequality and unequal power relations,’ which has serious implications for women’s and girls’ rights to health, education, and participation in economic and civic life. Dr. Allotey emphasised the value of investing in digital tools, systems, and innovation, including artificial intelligence, to tackle the issue and close implementation gaps. She outlined three key approaches to take in order to accelerate progress towards ending FGM, including investing in health workers and health system leadership; harnessing digital technologies to counter misinformation and expand access to SRHR information and services; and building international digital partnerships across governments, UN agencies, and civil societies.
Ms. Catherine Russell, Executive Director of the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), also spoke about the ‘transformative potential’ of technology in the fight against FGM. At the same time, she cautioned against its limitations, noting risks such as exposure to violence, misinformation or sexual harassment, as well as unequal or limited access to digital technologies. She outlined three core principles developed by UNICEF to guide digital action on FGM, notably by ensuring women’s and girls’ participation in the creation and design of digital tools, ensuring that technology is reinforced by gender-responsive systems and services, and by ‘ensur[ing] FGM-related digital interventions are designed to help close the gender digital divide.’
Ms. Diene Keita, Executive Director of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), noted that digital tools are ‘transforming the landscape of FGM prevention and response,’ but key to ensuring their potential is fully leveraged is to bridge the digital divide and reduce inequalities in access to digital literacy and infrastructure. She explained how digital technologies have enabled UNFPA to ‘predict risk, strengthen early warning systems, analyse trends, improve service delivery, and support more targeted and impactful programming.’ Addressing the Council, she urged States to integrate digital strategies into anti-FGM efforts and to invest in the necessary digital literacy, accountability, and protection systems in order to close the digital divide.
Ms. Irene Kaggwa, Giga Programme Manager at the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), introduced Giga, a joint initiative launched by UNICEF and the ITU aiming to achieve universal Internet connectivity in schools by 2030. She outlined how Giga supports governments through the provision of tools and expertise to improve connectivity, such as data for informed decision-making, technical assistance, and capacity-building across four key areas: school mapping, infrastructure modelling, and cost analysis, financing, and procurement. It has also supported governments in identifying and accessing funding sources. Ms. Kaggwa explained that Giga has, since its launch in 2019, ‘mapped over 2.2 million schools across 145 countries’ and narrowed digital literacy, connectivity, and education gaps. She concluded by emphasising the transformative potential of connected schools for education, inclusion, and socio-economic development, including their role in connecting entire communities.

2. High-level panel discussion on the commemoration of the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action

H.E. Mr. James Ndirangu Waweru, Chair-Rapporteur of the Intergovernmental Working Group on the Effective Implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action (the DDPA) reflected on the legacy of the DDPA 25 years after its adoption. He noted that ‘[It continues to] guide our collective understanding of racism as a structural, historical and contemporary phenomenon,’ underscoring its role in linking the legacies of slavery and colonialism to present-day racial inequalities. Although progress has been made in raising anti-racism awareness and strengthening international standards, he underscored that racial discrimination remains widespread in sectors such as education, health, housing, employment, justice systems and in digital spaces. Mr. Waweru stressed that combating racial discrimination remains ‘imperative’ to reduce global inequality and conflict – and that the DDPA provides a ‘clear and practical roadmap’ to this end. He called for stronger action, increased resources, and wider support to advance its implementation, stressing that tackling racism is a ‘shared international responsibility’ requiring collective advocacy from governments, civil society, the media, and individuals.
Mr. Martin Chungong, Secretary General of the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) underscored that the DDPA explicitly recognises the role of parliaments and the IPU in advancing action and fostering debate on measures to combat racism and racial discrimination. He pointed to four key areas in this regard: first, translating international commitments into anti-racism legislation criminalising discrimination and incitement to racial hatred; second, holding governments accountable for the effective implementation of anti-racist policies; third, promoting inclusive representation to ensure parliaments reflect the diversity of the societies they serve; and fourth, providing leadership in public discourse, including by countering incitement to racial hatred, and show solidarity with those who affected by it. He ended by reaffirming the centrality of anti-racist principles and values to the IPU’s strategy and mission, stating that ‘laws can improve lives, that inclusive politics can reduce tensions, and that unity in diversity is a source of strength rather than division.’
Ms. Beatriz Carrillo de los Reyes, Director General for Equal Treatment and Non-Discrimination and against Racism at the Ministry of Equality of Spain, spoke about the insidious manifestations of racism that continue to evolve across social, institutional, and online environments. She highlighted Spain’s approach to combating racism through strong institutional frameworks, comprehensive legislation, and coordinated action across different levels of government and civil society. Drawing on her personal experience as a Roma woman and government representative, she stressed that strong institutions, inclusive education, and robust legal frameworks ‘create spaces for real equality.’ In the context of an increasingly unstable world, she warned that shifting focus away from anti-racism efforts threatens democratic cohesion and hinders sustainable development, and called for more international cooperation, investment in education and legal protection mechanisms, and accountability from digital platforms.
Ms. Ketty Marcelo López, President of the Organization of Ashaninka Indigenous Women of the central Amazon region of Peru, stated that Indigenous Peoples, particularly Indigenous women, have yet to truly benefit from international anti-racist norms and frameworks. Highlighting the links between racism, classism, colonialism, and extractivism, she lamented that Indigenous women in Peru continue to face violence, repression, and discrimination, which ‘not only remains intact but also goes unpunished.’ She argued that colonial patterns of racism and ‘physical and cultural extermination’ continue to be reproduced, which fundamentally undermine Indigenous Peoples’ rights to self determination and the protection of their territories and ways of life. She called for the stronger implementation of the DDPA and urged States to ‘[decolonise] their thoughts and actions’ in doing so.

3. Panel discussion on human rights and a culture of peace

Mr. Adama Dieng, African Union Special Envoy on the Prevention of Genocide and Other Mass Atrocities and former Special Adviser to the Secretary-General on the Prevention of Genocide, reflected on the meaning of peace in the context of growing global inequality, instability, and eroding trust in public institutions. He argued that peace is ‘not simply a political arrangement, but a moral commitment expressed through law and institutions,’ underscoring the centrality of human-rights based approaches to peacefully resolving disagreements. Mr. Dieng further highlighted that peace begins with inclusion – gender equality and religious freedom are particularly important in this regard – as well as a sense of belonging and equal opportunity, which must be actively sustained through responsible governance and principled leadership. ‘A culture of peace is built not only in conference halls, but in classrooms, courts, parliaments, places of worship, and in our daily choices,’ he said.
Mr. Brett G. Scharffs, Rex E. Lee Chair and Professor of Law at Brigham Young University and Director of the International Center for Law and Religion Studies, shared three observations and reflections on the ways in which protecting human rights contributes to promoting and strengthening a culture of peace. First, he spoke about the interrelationship between human rights, a culture of peace, and human dignity – the latter, he said, is an essential yet often overlooked pillar of creating cultures of peace. Second, he emphasised the critical importance of engaging with faith-based actors and inter-faith dialogue in efforts to build cultures of peace. He acknowledged that religion can, at times, be a source of conflict, but stressed that it can also form part of the solution, adding that ‘nearly every religious tradition has important teachings about human dignity, human rights, and peacemaking.’ Third, he argued that behind many of the most pressing conflicts around the world today are powerful leaders who are ‘not interested in peace.’ In this context, democracy and the rule of law are essential, Mr. Scharff said, as they enable accountability and allow populations to choose and, if necessary, replace leaders, creating pathways towards more peace-oriented governance.
Mr. Itonde Kakoma, President and Chief Executive Officer of Interpeace, underlined that conflict often emerges gradually from exclusion, inequality, lack of trust, and unresolved grievances, rather than sudden violence, making human rights essential not only as protective frameworks but as practical tools for early warning and prevention. Mr. Kakoma also highlighted the importance of youth participation in peacebuilding processes which, in turn, ‘strengthens the social infrastructure that allows societies to manage tensions before they escalate.’ Strong and accountable institutions are critical to sustaining peace, he added, particularly in addressing trauma and rebuilding trust. He concluded by urging the Human Rights Council to support States in integrating human rights into national prevention and peacebuilding strategies; investing in civil society, community dialogue mechanisms, and NHRIs; and maintaining focus on mechanisms enabling effective prevention.
Ms. Awa Dabo, Director and Deputy Head of the Peacebuilding and Peace Support Office emphasised that human rights approaches and peacebuilding must be aligned, as peacebuilding tools enable the application of human rights norms, ‘transforming potential triggers of conflict into opportunities that in turn can build resilient institutions, and a durable culture of peace.’ Drawing on examples from the field, Ms. Dabo illustrated how the Peacebuilding Fund has supported NHRIs, inclusive political processes, early warning systems, and community-based mediation mechanisms, strengthening social cohesion and reducing the risk of violence. She shared three potential avenues to further strengthen the link between human rights and peacebuilding: first, she called on States to integrate human rights into national prevention strategies. Second, she explained that greater coherence between Geneva- and New York-based processes (i.e. harmonising the work of the UN Peacebuilding Architecture and the Human Rights Council) can help align support to national strategies for prevention, dialogue, and mediation. Third, investment in locally-grounded peace infrastructures is key to strengthening social cohesion and resilience.

4. Panel discussion on financing sustainable development in line with economic, social and cultural rights obligations

Mr. Richard Samans, Senior Fellow at the Geneva Graduate Institute for International and Development Studies and Special Advisor to the United Nations Economist Network, stated that the progressive realisation of economic and social rights is a driver of economic growth, ‘and often a more powerful one than traditional development strategies.’ However, this principle has yet to be adequately integrated into macroeconomic and fiscal policymaking at national and intergovernmental levels. Citing a number of academic and UN studies, he explained that increased human rights-related social spending generally has been found to have a net positive impact on both GDP and tax revenues, in both developed and emerging economies. He noted that evidence from developing countries in particular has indicated that five- to ten-year cumulative multipliers for care and social protection spending are consistently positive, with the strongest effects in poorer and more unequal countries. He concluded that social investments can create, rather than merely consume, fiscal space over the medium to long term. Mr. Samans called on national governments to benchmark, increase, and analyse the effects of investment in social infrastructure; he also urged international institutions to factor these effects into debt sustainability analyses, to expand lending for growth-enhancing social projects, to create a dedicated commission on macroeconomics and human rights, and to adopt a broader ‘beyond GDP’ indicator to fully capture the fiscal space available for such investments.

5. Annual interactive debate on the rights of persons with disabilities

Ms. Ana Vieitez, Head of Universal Accessibility at Transports Metropolitans de Barcelona, began by reaffirming that accessibility mobility is a fundamental human right guaranteeing persons with disabilities autonomy, equality, and inclusion, enabling them to enjoy a range of other rights, including the rights to education, healthcare, political participation, and work. She highlighted that rural areas often face systemic gaps in this regard, and stressed that all public spaces should serve human diversity. Far from being a cost, she pointed out that investing in accessibility generates multiple social and economic benefits, while inaccessibility imposes burdens that disproportionately affect women: ‘Inaccessibility increases unpaid care responsibilities. It limits access to employment. It reduces social participation. And it generates additional public expenditure in systems that must compensate for what infrastructure fails to provide.’ She stressed that greater international cooperation in developing standards, infrastructure, and information systems and operations will be crucial to making accessibility a permanent, rights-based feature of transport systems.

Ms. Esther Nagetey, Youth Fellow at the International Disability Alliance, spoke about her experiences growing up in Ghana as a visually impaired woman. She emphasised that disability-inclusive infrastructure is fundamental to guaranteeing persons with disabilities their autonomy, safety, and dignity, noting that exclusion stems not from impairment, but from inaccessible environments. She explained that inaccessible infrastructure limits persons with disabilities’ rights and access to education, housing, transport, and community life, while increasing dependence on others and, in turn, heightening their exposure to violence, exploitation, and poverty. She argued that accessibility is a precondition for independent living and mobility, and that rapidly urbanising regions like Africa present a critical opportunity to design inclusion. She concluded that inclusive infrastructure is an economic and social investment, calling for accountability and systemic change to guarantee persons with disabilities dignity, equality, and the rights enshrined in international and regional frameworks.
Ms. Natalia Ángel-Cabo, Justice of the Constitutional Court of Colombia, explained how persons with disabilities have shaped the Court’s understanding of the challenges they face and accessibility more generally, which she referred to as ‘the architecture of equality.’ She shared examples of cases brought before the Court by persons with disabilities who were adversely affected by inaccessible public infrastructure, including one person who challenged the lack of accessibility within the Court building itself. She added that inaccessible infrastructure can reinforce dependency and, as a result, acts as a ‘silent driver of institutionalisation.’ Ms. Ángel-Cabo admitted that judicial recognition of the rights of persons with disabilities is insufficient without implementation, sustained funding, and intergovernmental coordination, particularly in rural and conflict-affected regions. She concluded that accessibility must be integrated ‘from the outset in all publicly funded infrastructure projects’ as a preventative policy, arguing that removing accessibility barriers expands autonomy, strengthens social inclusion, and reduces dependency.

6. Annual full-day meeting on the rights of the child

Mr. Benoit Van Keirsbilck, Member of the Committee on the Rights of the Child, argued that preventing violations of children’s rights in armed conflict requires prioritising prevention itself. He criticised the international community’s under-investment in conflict prevention, as well as its under-use and active undermining of international laws, mechanisms, and frameworks aimed at promoting peaceful conflict resolution, pointing to the damage ‘that cannot be repaired in the minds and bodies of mutilated children, orphaned, having lost precious years of childhood and education’ – and lamented that violations of international law too often carry minimal consequences. He also spoke about the children killed, displaced, and deprived of basic rights in Minab, Iran, in Lebanon, and in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, who ‘continue to pay an immeasurable price for war.’ Although the Convention on the Rights of the Child remains the most important tool for the protection of children in armed conflict, Mr. Van Keirsbilck regretted its inability to function properly due to budget cuts while ‘colossal sums’ are spent on arms, concluding that protecting children ultimately depends on States’ political will to invest in the mechanisms mandated to do so.

Ms. Cordula Droege, Chief Legal Officer at the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), emphasised that the world’s children are living during a time of steadily increasing instability and militarisation, with one in five already living in conflict-affected areas – a number that has more than doubled in 30 years. She therefore urged States to ramp up the protection of children and to safeguard their futures, outlining several recommendations in order to do so. She called on States to endorse and implement the Safe Schools Declaration and the Political Declaration on Strengthening the Protection of Civilians from Humanitarian Consequences. She also urged the integration of child protection provisions into military procedure and practice, and emphasised the risks of armed groups recruiting minors online, calling for the universal ratification of the Optional Protocol on Children in Armed Conflict, the Geneva Conventions’ Additional Protocols, and the Rome Statute. She ended by noting that ‘it is common to see children invoked as effigies of suffering in global media,’ but that children and their rights are rarely central to political and military decision-making.

Ms. Vanessa Frazier, Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict began by listing a number of international human rights, humanitarian, and criminal law frameworks protecting the rights of children in conflict, which are comprehensive and remain fit for purpose, but are not adequately implemented or respected. She warned that rising militarisation and widespread conflict are placing an increasing number of children around the globe at risk, with long-term consequences for future generations. She urged States to make child protection a cornerstone of policy and military practice, and to accede to or ratify key international agreements dedicated to child protection during armed conflict if they have not already done so.

Yansel, a 15 year-old Colombian child rights advocate, addressed the Council via video message, presenting the results of a survey in which children from several regions in the country shared how armed conflict had affected them. He informed the Council that many children face severe disruptions to education due to violence, displacement, and recruitment as child soldiers. He highlighted the importance of peacebuilding initiatives and the creation of community spaces providing child survivors of conflict with mental, spiritual, and cultural support, but noted that these are often underutilised. Yansel emphasised the need for accountability from governments and decision-makers, urging authorities to prioritise the well-being of children and to implement programmes improving children’s education, mental health, and opportunities for future generations. ‘We’re not asking for new laws to be invented; we’re asking that the existing laws be truly enforced and respected, that our rights be valued, and that our voices be heard,’ he said.

Commissions of Inquiry, Fact-Finding Missions, and Independent Investigations

1. Enhanced ID with the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission for the Sudan

On February 26 2026, the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission for the Sudan (FFM) composed of Mohamed Chande Othman, Joy Ngozi Ezeilo, and Mona Rishmawi, delivered an oral update to the Council followed by an interactive dialogue with States and NGOs on the country’s human rights situation.

Mr. Mohamed Chande Othman stated that the situation around El-Fasher ‘exhibits clear hallmarks of genocide’ by the Rapid Support Forces (RSF). He explained that at least three acts of genocide are evident, namely: mass killings, the infliction of serious bodily and mental harm, and the deliberate creation of conditions of life aimed at the destruction of the protected Zaghawa and Fur communities.

Firstly, he said, the FFM had documented widespread and systematic killings of civilians across El-Fasher, including in universities and hospitals. According to survivor testimonies and video footage, perpetrators carried out these attacks while using ethnic slurs and calling for the extermination of the Zaghawa community.

Mr. Chande Othman went on to describe the bodily and mental harm inflicted by RSF forces on civilians in El-Fasher – in particular, the brutal, widespread, systematic, and ethnically targeted sexual violence against women and girls from the Zaghawa community. Torture, arbitrary detention, enforced disappearances, and extortion had also been documented.

He added that the RSF had imposed a prolonged siege on the city, cutting off food, water, medical supplies, and humanitarian aid while simultaneously weaponising starvation. Concluding that these acts constitute war crimes and crimes against humanity, Mr. Chande Othman reiterated that the scale and pattern of the violations clearly amounted to genocide which risk spreading beyond El-Fasher. ‘Without urgent protection and credible accountability, the risk of further genocidal violence remains grave and ongoing,’ he said.

2. ID with the Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine

On 12 March, the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine, composed of Erik Møse (Chair), Vrinda Gover, and Pablo de Greiff, delivered an oral update to the Council, followed by an interactive dialogue with States and NGOs on the situation of human rights in the country.

Mr. Erik Møse began by highlighting the impact the armed conflict in Ukraine has had on civilians, with a death toll surpassing 15,000 – with casualties increasing by 31% in 2025 – and over 41,000 injured since 2022, adding that the scale, gravity, and magnitude of the crimes committed by the Russian Federation had increased over time.

He went on to state that the Commission had verified the systematic deportation and transfer of at least 1,205 Ukrainian children to the Russian Federation, carried out coercively and as part of a coordinated state policy. He stressed that these acts amounted to crimes against humanity, with most children still not returned and families left with information about their children’s whereabouts.

The Commission had also found that the Russian Federation had used its judicial system to conduct staged trials based on fabricated evidence and confessions obtained by torture, while disregarding fair trial guarantees. Mr. Møse highlighted the sexual violence committed by Russian armed forces against Ukrainian women and girls, including some as young as 13 years old.

Turning to the the treatment of Russian armed forces, Mr. Møse stated that the Commission had documented the coercive recruitment of foreign fighters and serious abuses of soldiers, citing testimonies describing extreme violence, mock execution, and detention in pits. In the case of Ukraine, the Commission expressed concerns regarding mobilisation practices for armed forces, having documented violations such as irregular administrative detention, lack of access to a lawyer, and hurried medical examinations.

Overall, Mr. Møse said the conflict continues to generate widespread suffering and stressed the urgent need for victim-centred support, as well as judicial and non-judicial accountability.

Ukraine, speaking as a country concerned, welcomed the work of the Commission of Inquiry. It condemned the organised deportation and transfer of Ukrainian children to the Russian Federation which they argued aimed to deliberately ‘[destroy] the fabric of Ukrainian society’ and erase Ukrainian identity. It called for accountability for the crimes committed by the Russian Federation, noting that Ukraine is currently engaged in efforts to establish a Special Tribunal for the crime of aggression and an international claims commission to ensure compensation for victims. Ukraine concluded by urging continued support for the Commission of Inquiry’s mandate.

The Russian Federation, as a country concerned, did not take the floor.

3. ID with the Group of Independent Experts on the Human Rights Situation in Belarus

On 12 March, the Group of Independent Experts on the human rights situations in Belarus, composed of Karinna Mosalenko (Chair), Susan Bazilli, and Monika Stanisława Płatek, delivered an oral update to the Council, followed by an interactive dialogue with States and NGOs on the situation of human rights in the country.

Ms. Karinna Mosalenko described the Belarusian authorities’ systematic suppression and violation of the fundamental rights of their ‘real or perceived opponents,’ whom the Group of Experts had found were subjected to arbitrary arrest and detention, torture, politically-motivated prosecutions, and trials that violate free trial guarantees. She explained that detainees have faced inhuman detention conditions, violence, and prolonged incommunicado detention, while women and LGBTQ+ persons faced additional discrimination and abuse. Ms. Mosalenko also highlighted the impact of the arrests and detentions on the victims’ families, noting the trauma caused by long-term separation.

Although the Group had found that nearly 200 prisoners were released in 2025 following negotiations with the United States, it was concerned about the manner in which they had been released, involving forced expulsion and arbitrary deportation of Belarusian and foreign nationals to third countries. Ms. Mosalenko explained that repression extends beyond Belarus, with exiled persons facing trials in absentia, asset seizures, and harassment, and confiscation of property.

Ms. Mosalenko concluded that there is a ‘complete lack of accountability,’ with the Belarusian government failing to conduct investigations or disciplinary proceedings, and refusing to engage with the Group of Independent Experts.

Belarus, as the country concerned, strongly rejected the Group’s findings, accusing it of fabricating the facts within the report and interfering in Belarus’ internal affairs under the pretext of improving its human rights situation. It maintained that Belarus upholds human rights and enjoys a functioning democracy, characterised by active civil society, trade unions, and independent media, and claimed that external actors are using the Human Rights Council to advance geopolitically-motivated agendas and destabilise Belarus.

4. ID with the Fact Finding Mission on the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela

On 12 March, the Fact Finding Mission on the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, composed of María Eloísa Quintero and Alex Neve, delivered an oral update to the Council, followed by an interactive dialogue with States and NGOs on the situation of human rights in the country.

Ms. María Eloísa Quintero began by sharing the Mission’s findings during the period from September to December 2025, describing the patterns of repression and violations committed by Venezuelan authorities against its people. She noted that the Mission had documented 135 cases of arbitrary detention with detainees subjected to torture, sexual and gender-based violence, with prison conditions resulting in at least three deaths in custody. The detainees’ families, who had not received information about their loved ones’ condition or whereabouts, had also been seriously affected.

Ms. Quintero turned to the events of 3 January 2026, when the United States of America carried out a military attack in Venezuela which included an operation to remove President Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores, which she stressed constituted a violation of international law. Following the appointment of Delcy Rodríguez as interim president, some steps appeared encouraging, including the release of detainees and the adoption of an Amnesty Law. However, Ms. Quintero explained, the scope and implementation of these measures remained unclear and limited, and raised concerns that the Amnesty Law was adopted without proper consultation, does not recognise State responsibility for violations, and excludes many victims of repression. Furthermore, civic space continues to be severely restricted, with the structures and laws enabling repression remaining intact, with no institutional reforms and officials implicated in serious violations still in power.

The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, speaking as the country concerned, criticised the unilateral coercive measures imposed on the State over the last decade which have had a severe impact on the population’s enjoyment of its human rights. It added that Venezuela had been open to cooperating with the OHCHR, but expressed concern over its ‘politicisation’ of human rights and their use as a tool for external pressure and regime change. Venezuela went on to argue that the steps by interim authorities, including the Amnesty Law, aim to promote reconciliation and unity, and expressed hope that cooperation with the OHCHR would improve and contribute to strengthening human rights in the country.

5. ID with the Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic

On 13 March, the Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic, composed of Paulo Sergio Pinheiro (Chair), Monia Ammar, and Fionnuala Ní Aoláin, delivered an oral update to the Council, followed by an interactive dialogue with States and NGOs on the situation of human rights in the country.

Ms. Monia Ammar welcomed the positive steps taken by the Syrian government to ensure a peaceful political transition and improving human rights, including by establishing national accountability bodies and national commissions of inquiry and promoting an enabling environment for media and civil society. The Commission also expressed satisfaction with the government’s positive response to the Commission’s work, including the recommendations contained in its recent reports.

However, Ms. Ammar stressed that Syrians continue to live in challenging conditions, with 90% of the population living below the poverty line, many in camps. Violence persists in coastal and west-central regions of the country, where the Commission has documented violations of international law committed by all parties that may amount to war crimes and potentially crimes against humanity, including extrajudicial killings, torture, enforced disappearaces, and violations of the rights to housing and to property. She highlighted the impact of Israeli airstrikes and ground incursions on civilians, resulting in killings, displacement, and destruction of property, and expressed concern about the detention and transfer of individuals suspected of ISIS affiliation, including young men who travelled to Syria as children.

Ms. Ammar emphasised the government’s responsibility to hold perpetrators to account and to ensure due process, calling for comprehensive judicial and institutional reform and increased international support. She warned that without a human rights-based approach, the risk of instability remains high.

The Syrian Arab Republic, speaking as the country concerned, outlined a number of steps taken by the Syrian government to promote and protect human rights following years-long conflict and systemic violations, including enshrining human rights in the constitution, recognising the cultural and linguistic rights of Syrian Kurds, and submitting a pledge on refugees. It reaffirmed its commitment to cooperating with Human Rights Council mechanisms and with the OHCHR, including with the Commission of Inquiry, in order to rebuild the State and ensure accountability and justice for all Syrians.

6. ID on the report of the Group of Human Rights Experts on the promotion and protection of human rights in Nicaragua

On 16 March, the Group of Human Rights Experts on the promotion and protection of human rights in Nicaragua (GHREN), composed of Jan-Michael Simon (Chair), Ariel Peralto Distefano, and Reed Brody, delivered an oral update to the Council, followed by an interactive dialogue with States and NGOs on the situation of human rights in the country.

Mr. Jan-Michael Simon noted that patterns of widespread systematic repression are intensifying in Nicaragua, with victims displaying increasingly diverse profiles and characteristics; many have also suffered gender-based discrimination. He added that the repression has extended beyond Nicaragua’s borders, with the GHREN having found that authorities have monitored, threatened, and harassed Nicaraguans abroad, as well as their relatives within the country, via sophisticated transnational surveillance and intelligence networks. As a result, many exiled Nicaraguans have been deprived of their nationality and left stateless. Mr. Simon noted that this has contributed to a climate of fear within the country, leading to self-censorship and social isolation among Nicaraguans.

Mr. Simon explained that the GHREN has also documented widespread, institutionalised corruption within the country, which serves as a tool to finance the State’s repressive machinery and supporting actions violating human rights. He called on the Nicaraguan authorities to take steps towards restoring human rights, dismantle its repressive apparatus, and grant access to international human rights mechanisms.

Nicaragua, as the country concerned, did not take the floor.

Universal Periodic Review

Adoption of the UPR Working Group outcome reports

The Council adopted the UPR outcome reports of 13 States: Andorra, Belarus, Bulgaria, Croatia, Honduras, Jamaica, Liberia, Libya, Malawi, the Maldives, the Marshall Islands, Mongolia, and Panama.

A total of 3,230 recommendations were made to these States, of which 2,418 were accepted in whole; 745 were noted; and 45 partially accepted.

* Council members

General Debate under Item 6

On 23 March 2026, the Human Rights Council held its General Debate under item 6, during which states, UN entities, and civil society reaffirmed their commitment to the UPR as a central mechanism for promoting and protecting human rights.

States voiced their support for and commitment to engaging with the Universal Periodic Review process, underlining its vital role in improving the enjoyment of human rights on the ground and sharing examples of progress achieved in their respective countries through the implementation of recommendations. Several States expressed concern about the financial crisis facing the Human Rights Council and the UN system more broadly, stressing the need for stronger international cooperation and adequate financial resources to sustain the UPR mechanism’s work; other States spoke about the importance of supporting civil society participation in the UPR process and ensuring the protection of civil society actors. A number of speakers emphasised the importance of ensuring that the UPR process remains objective, transparent, impartial, and non-politicised, urging other States to uphold these principles.

UPR Info noted that the period between the fourth and fifth UPR cycles offers an opportunity to strengthen implementation and prepare for the next cycle. They explained that the adoption of the outcomes of the UPR Working Group should not be seen as the end of the review, but as the starting point for implementation, stressing that the strategic use of speaking time could help shift the focus from recommendations themselves to concrete action. They encouraged States under review to use this moment to outline their priorities and needs when it comes to implementation, and urged recommending States to clarify the intent of their recommendations, share good practices, and offer cooperation.

Special Procedures

Appointment of new mandate-holders

17 new mandate-holders were appointed during the session to fill positions on existing mandates. On the final day of the session, the following mandate-holders were appointed:

Serges Alain DJOYOU KAMGA (South Africa) was appointed the new member from the African Group of the Expert Mechanism on the Right to Development.
Xiaohui LIANG (China) was appointed the new member from Asia-Pacific of the Expert Mechanism on the Right to Development.
Ramona BIHOLAR (Romania) was appointed the new member from the Eastern European Group of the Expert Mechanism on the Right to Development.
Brian KEANE (United States of America) was appointed the new member from the Western European and Others Group of the Expert Mechanism on the Right to Development.
Gam Awungshi SHIMRAY (India) was appointed the new member from Asia-Pacific of the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Dalee SAMBO DOROUGH (United States of America) was appointed the new member from the Arctic of the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Zvezdan PIRTOSEK (Slovenia) was appointed the new Independent Expert on the enjoyment of all human rights by older persons.
Koldo Andoni CASLA SALAZAR (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) was appointed the new Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living, and on the right to non-discrimination in this context.
Katarina SCHWARTZ (New Zealand) was appointed the new Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of slavery and trafficking in persons.
Elena Carolina DIAZ GALAN (Spain) was appointed the new Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights.
Zeina JALLAD (State of Palestine) was appointed the new Special Rapporteur on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights.
Sofia MONSALVE SUAREZ (Colombia) was appointed the new Special Rapporteur on the right to food.
Ai KIHARA-HUNT (Japan) was appointed the new Special Rapporteur on the sale, sexual exploitation and sexual abuse of children.
Andrea BOLAÑOS VARGAS (Colombia) was appointed the new Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders.
Thomas ANDREWS (United States of America) was appointed the new Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Cambodia.
Kelley Anne ECKELS-CURRIE (United States of America) was appointed the new Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar.
John Phillip BINONDO (Philippines) was appointed the new member from Asia-Pacific of the Working Group of Experts on the People of African Descent.

General Debate under Item 10

On 26 March, the Council held the General Debate under agenda item 10, on technical assistance and capacity-building.

In their statements, speakers underscored that technical assistance and capacity-building are essential to ensuring States are able to meet their human rights obligations, and to advancing the enjoyment of human rights.. Several states, mainly from LDCs and SIDS, highlighted the positive contributions of the LDC/SIDS Trust Fund and the Voluntary Fund for Technical Cooperation in enabling their participation in global human rights dialogue, strengthening national institutions mandated to promote and protect human rights, and implementing the recommendations extended to them by Council mechanisms.

However, speakers also voiced concerns about the financial crisis facing the UN system, pointing out that reduced funding poses serious challenges for the delivery of technical cooperation and capacity-building to States in need. Several argued that safeguarding technical cooperation should be a top priority and urged States to pay their mandatory contributions on time, stressing the importance of providing adequate, predictable and sustained funding for technical assistance and capacity-building programmes despite the ongoing crisis.

Trust Fund for LDCs/SIDS

The Trust Fund for the participation of LDCs and SIDS in the work of the Council (set up in 2012) funded the participation of five (two female, three male) government officials at HRC61, from Haiti, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mozambique, and Trinidad and Tobago.

Adopted texts

The 61st session of the Council concluded with the adoption of 38 texts. This is 6 texts more than the number of texts (32) adopted at the 58th session in March 2025, marking an increase of 19%. Out of the 38 adopted texts:

28 were adopted by consensus (74%).
25 were thematic; 12 dealt with country-specific situations; and one pertained to organisational and procedural matters. Of the country-specific texts, three resolutions address human rights situations under item 2 (i.e., annual reports of the High Commissioner, his Office, and the Secretary-General), four resolutions deal with ‘human rights situations that require the Council’s attention,’ under item 4, two resolutions relate to technical assistance and capacity building under item 10, and lastly, three resolutions pertain to item 7 specifically on the ‘human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories.’
There were nineteen mandate extensions (ten thematic and nine country-specific).
Thematic mandate renewals included those on the sale, sexual exploitation and sexual abuse of children (SR); torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (SR); the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression (SR); minority issues (SR); adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living, and on the right to non-discrimination in this context (SR); the human rights of migrants (SR); the situation of human rights defenders (SR); contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance (SR); the effects of foreign debt and other related international financial obligations of States on the full enjoyment of all human rights, particularly economic, social and cultural rights (IE); and the Intergovernmental Working Group on the Effective Implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action.
In terms of country-specific mandates, the 61st session of the Council concluded with the renewal of the mandates on South Sudan (Commission on Human Rights); Myanmar (SR); DPRK (SR); Syria (Commission of Inquiry); Ukraine (Commission of Inquiry); Haiti (independent human rights expert appointed by the High Commissioner); Mali (IE); and Belarus (Group of Independent Experts and SR).

Featured image: António Guterres, United Nations Secretary-General, speaking at the opening of the High-level segment, 61st session of the Human Rights Council, Palais des Nations, Geneva, Switzerland – 23 February 2026

UN Photo / Violaine Martin