United Nations Commission on Human Rights

The United Nations Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR)

The United Nations Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR) was a functional commission within the overall framework of the United Nations from 1946 until it was replaced by the United Nations Human Rights Council in 2006. It was a subsidiary body of the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), and was also assisted in its work by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCHR). It was the UN's principal mechanism and international forum concerned with the promotion and protection of human rights. On 15 March 2006, the UN General Assembly voted overwhelmingly to replace UNCHR with the UN Human Rights Council.[1]

History
The UNCHR was established on 10 December 1946 at the first meeting of ECOSOC, and was one of the first two "Functional Commissions" set up within the early UN structure (the other being the Commission on the Status of Women). It was a body created under the terms of the United Nations Charter (specifically, under Article 68) to which all UN member states are signatories. The body went through two distinct phases

From 1947 to 1967 & post 1967

From 1947 to 1967, it followed the policy of absenteeism, which meant that the Commission would concentrate on promoting human rights and helping states elaborate treaties, but not on investigating or condemning violators. It was a period of strict observance of the sovereignty principle. In 1967, the Commission adopted interventionism as its policy. The context of the decade was of decolonization of Africa and Asia, and many countries of the continent pressed for a more active UN policy on human rights issues, especially in light of massive violations in apartheid South Africa. The new policy meant that the Commission would also investigate and produce reports on violations.

Travesty of UNCHR
To allow better fulfillment of this new policy, other changes took place. In the 1970s, the possibility of geographically-oriented workgroups was created. These groups would specialize their activities on the investigation of violations on a given region or even a single country, as was the case with Chile. With the 1980s came the creation of theme-oriented workgroups, which would specialize in specific types of abuses. None of these measures, however, were able to make the Commission as effective as desired, mainly because of the presence of human rights violators and the politicization of the body. During the following years until its extinction, the UNCHR became increasingly discredited among activists and governments alike.

Mandate OF UNCHR
The Commission held its final meeting in Geneva on March 27, 2006 and was replaced by the United Nations Human Rights Council in the same year. The Commission on Human Rights was intended to examine, monitor and publicly report on human rights situations in specific countries or territories (known as country mechanisms or mandates) as well as on major phenomena of human rights violations worldwide (known as thematic mechanisms or mandates).

Structure OF UNCHR
At the time it was extinguished, the Commission consisted of representatives drawn from 53 member states, elected by the members of ECOSOC. There were no permanent members; each year (usually in May) approximately a third of the seats of the Commission would come up for election, and the representatives were appointed for a three-year term. Seats on the Commission were apportioned by region, using the mechanism of the United Nations Regional Groups. During its last year of service in 2005, the representation by region was as follows: 15 from the African Group:
Burkina Faso, Republic of the Congo, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Guinea, Kenya, Mauritania, Nigeria, South Africa, Sudan, Swaziland, Togo, Zimbabwe

12 from the Asian Group:

Bhutan, People's Republic of China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Nepal, Pakistan, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka

Structure
5 from the Eastern European Group:
Armenia, Hungary, Romania, Russian Federation, Ukraine

11 from the Latin American and Caribbean Group:

Argentina, Brazil, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru

10 from the Western European and Others Group:

Australia, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, United Kingdom, United States of America

The Commission would meet each year in regular session for six weeks during March and April in Geneva, Switzerland. In January 2004, Australia was elected as chair of the 60th Session. In January 2005, Indonesia was elected chair of the 61st Session. Peru was elected chair of the 62nd Session in January 2006. The Commission held its final meeting in Geneva on March 27, 2006.

Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights

In 1999 the Economic and Social Council changed its title from the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities to the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights".[2] The Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights was the main subsidiary body of the Commission on Human Rights. It was composed of twenty-six experts whose responsibility was to undertake studies, particularly in light of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and make recommendations to the Commission concerning the prevention of discrimination of any kind relating to human rights and fundamental freedoms and the protection of racial, national, religious and linguistic minorities. Membership was selected with regard to equitable geographical distribution.

Sub-Commission established seven Working Groups

The Sub-Commission established seven Working Groups that investigate specific human rights concerns, including: Minorities Transnational corporations Administration of justice Anti-terrorism Contemporary Forms of Slavery Indigenous Populations Communication Social Forum The United Nations Human Rights Council assumed responsibility for the Sub-Commission when it replaced the Commission on Human Rights in 2006.

Special procedures
The Commission on Human Rights established 30 special procedures, or mechanisms, to address specific country situations or thematic issues such as freedom of expression and opinion, torture, the right to food, and the right to education.[3] Individuals with expertise in particular areas of human rights were appointed by the chair of the Commission to serve as Special Rapporteurs (highest paid!?) for a maximum of six years. They are unpaid, independent experts who receive personnel and logistical support from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights for their work. Their main activities are to examine, monitor, advise and publicly report on human rights situations in specific countries or territories. They are able to write to governments about reported violations and conduct fact-finding visits to countries that invite them.

Working Groups
The special mechanisms are categorised according to: Thematic Mandates.[4] Country Mandates.[5] Special procedures also include working groups made up of up to five experts who monitor and investigate specific human rights concerns. Three groups were established by the Commission: Working Group on Arbitrary Detention Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances Working Group on the use of mercenaries as a means of impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to selfdetermination The special procedures are now under the direction of the United Nations Human Rights Council.

Criticism
The Commission was repeatedly criticized for the composition of its membership. In particular, several of its member countries themselves had dubious human rights records, including states whose representatives had been elected to chair the commission.[6] Another criticism was that the Commission did not engage in constructive discussion of human rights issues, but was a forum for politically selective fingerpointing and criticism. The desire of states with problematic human rights records to be elected to the Commission was viewed largely as a way to defend themselves from such attacks.

extensive records of human rights violations

Activist groups had long expressed concern over the memberships of the People's Republic of China, Zimbabwe, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, and the past memberships of Algeria, Syria, Libya, Uganda and Vietnam on the Commission. These countries had extensive records of human rights violations, and one concern was that by working against resolutions on the commission condemning human rights violations, they indirectly promoted despotism and domestic repression.[6] On May 4, 2004, United States ambassador Sichan Siv walked out of the Commission following the uncontested election of Sudan to the commission, calling it an "absurdity" in light of Sudan's ethnic cleansing in the Darfur region.[7] One major consequence of the election of Sudan to the Commission was the lack of willingness for some countries to work through the commission.

situation in the Darfur: Sudan

on July 30, 2004, it was the United Nations Security Council, not the Commission, that passed a resolutionby 130, with China and Pakistan abstainingthreatening Sudan with unspecified sanctions if the situation in the Darfur region did not improve within the following 30 days. The reasons given for the action were the attacks by the Janjaweed Arab militias of Sudan on the non-Arab African Muslim population of Darfur, a region in western Sudan.

United Nations Human Rights Council

The United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) is an inter-governmental body within the United Nations System. The UNHRC is the successor to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR, herein CHR), and is a subsidiary body of the United Nations General Assembly. The council works closely with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and engages the United Nations' Special Procedures. The General Assembly established the UNHRC by adopting a resolution (A/RES/60/251) on 15 March 2006, in order to replace the previous CHR, which had been heavily criticised for allowing countries with poor human rights records to be members.[1][2]

 UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon and former High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson have criticized the council for acting according to political considerations as opposed to human rights. Specifically, Secretaries General Kofi Annan and Ban Ki Moon, the council's president Doru Costea, the European Union, Canada and the United States have accused the council of focusing disproportionately on the Israeli Palestinian conflict. The United States boycotted the Council during the George W. Bush administration, but reversed its position on it during the Obama administration.[6] On 18 June 2007, one year after holding its first meeting, the UNHRC adopted its Institution-building package, which provides elements to guide it in its future work.

 Among the elements was the Universal Periodic Review. The Universal Periodic Review will assess the human rights situations in all 193 UN Member States. Another element is an Advisory Committee, which serves as the UNHRCs think tank, and provides it with expertise and advice on thematic human rights issues, that is, issues which pertain to all parts of the world. Another element is a Complaint Procedure, which allows individuals and organizations to bring complaints about human rights violations to the attention of the Council.

 The members of the General Assembly elect the members who occupy the UNHRC's forty-seven seats. The term of each seat is three years, and no member may occupy a seat for more than two consecutive terms. The seats are distributed among the UN's regional groups as follows: 13 for Africa, 13 for Asia, six for Eastern Europe, eight for Latin America and the Caribbean, and seven for the Western European and Others Group The previous CHR had a membership of 53 elected by the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) through a majority of those present and voting. Members of the Council undergo a new universal review mechanism during their term of membership. The General Assembly can suspend the rights and privileges of any Council member that it decides has persistently committed gross and systematic violations of human rights during its term of membership. The suspension process requires a two-thirds majority vote by the General Assembly.

Structure

 The resolution establishing the UNHRC states that "members elected to the Council shall uphold the highest standards in the promotion of Human Rights Members List of members of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights: Members of the UNHRC are elected to staggered three-year terms. The first election of members was held on 9 May 2006.[8] The current members,[9] with the year that the mandate expires in parentheses, are the following: African States (13) Asian States (13) Eastern European States (6) Latin American & Caribbean States (8) Western European & Other States (7)n and protection of human rights."

Presidents
Mr. Luis Alfonso de Alba (Mexico) 19 June 2006 to 18 June 2007. Mr. Doru Romulus Costea (Romania) 19 June 2007 to 18 June 2008. Mr. Martin Ihoeghian Uhomoibhi (Nigeria) 19 June 2008 to 18 June 2009. Mr. Alex Van Meeuwen (Belgium) 19 June 2009 to 18 June 2010.[16] Mr. Sihasak Phuangketkeow (Thailand) 19 June 2010 to 18 June 2011.[16] Laura Dupuy Lasserre (Uruguay)19 June 2011 to current.

Advisory Committee
The Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights was the main subsidiary body of the CHR. The Sub-Commission was composed of 26 elected human rights experts whose mandate was to conduct studies on discriminatory practices and to make recommendations to ensure that racial, national, religious, and linguistic minorities are protected by law. The 26 members of the Sub-Commission divided their work between eight Working Groups which examined the following issues: Working Group on Administration of Justice Working Group on Communication Working Group on Contemporary Forms of Slavery Working Group on Indigenous Populations Working Group on Minorities The Social Forum Working Group on Transnational Corporations Working Group on Terrorism

Universal Periodic Review

The Universal Periodic Review "has great potential to promote and protect human rights in the darkest corners of the world. Ban Ki-moon, UN Secretary-General The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) is a unique process which involves a review of the human rights records of all 192 UN Member States once every four years. The UPR is a State-driven process, under the auspices of the Human Rights Council, which provides the opportunity for each State to declare what actions they have taken to improve the human rights situations in their countries and to fulfil their human rights obligations. As one of the main features of the Council, the UPR is designed to ensure equal treatment for every country when their human rights situations are assessed.

 The UPR was created through the UN General Assembly on 15 March 2006 by resolution 60/251, which established the Human Rights Council itself. It is a cooperative process which, by 2011, will have reviewed the human rights records of every country. Currently, no other universal mechanism of this kind exists. The UPR is one of the key elements of the new Council which reminds States of their responsibility to fully respect and implement all human rights and fundamental freedoms. The ultimate aim of this new mechanism is to improve the human rights situation in all countries and address human rights violations wherever they occur.

Advisory Committee to provide expert advice

When the UNHRC replaced the CHR in 2006, the UNHRC assumed responsibility for the SubCommission, and extended its mandate for one year (to June 2007), but it met for the final time in August 2006.[17] At its final meeting, the Sub-Commission recommended the creation of a Human Rights Consultative Committee to provide advice to the UNHRC.[18] In September 2007, the UNHRC decided to create an Advisory Committee to provide expert advice.[19] The Advisory Committee has eighteen members. Those members are distributed as follows:
five from African states; five from Asian states; three from Latin American and Caribbean States; three from Western European and other states; and two members from Eastern European states.[20]

Complaint Procedure
On 18 June 2007, the UNHRC adopted Resolution 5/1 to establish a Complaint Procedure. The Complaint Procedure: of gross and reliably attested violations of all human rights and all fundamental freedoms occurring in any part of the world and under any circumstances. Two working groups make up the Complaint Procedure:
the Working Group on Communications (WGC) and the Working Group on Situations (WGS).

 The WGC consists of five independent and highly qualified experts, and is geographically representative of the five regions represented by the Human Rights Council (Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean, Eastern Europe, and Western Europe and Others). The Advisory Committee designates the WGC's experts from among its members. The experts serve for three years with the possibility of one renewal. The experts determine whether a complaint deserves investigation. If a complaint deserves investigation, the WGC passes the complaint to the WGS.

The Working Group on Situations

The WGS comprises five members appointed by the regional groups from among the States member of the Council for the period of one year (mandate renewable once). meets twice a year for a period of five working days in order to examine the communications transferred to it by the Working Group on Communications, including the replies of States thereon, as well as the situations which the Council is already seized of under the complaint procedure. The Working Group on Situations, on the basis of the information and recommendations provided by the Working Group on Communications, presents the Council with a report on consistent patterns of gross and reliably attested violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms and makes recommendations to the Council on the course of action to take.

Special Procedures
"Special procedures" is the name given to the mechanisms established by the former United Nations Commission on Human Rights and continued by the Human Rights Council to monitor human rights violations in specific countries or examine global human rights issues. Special procedures can be either individuals (called "Special Rapporteurs", "Special Representatives" or "Independent Experts") who are leading experts in a particular area of human rights, or working groups usually composed of five members. In order to preserve their independence they do not receive pay for their work.

29 thematic and 13 country mandates

Various activities can be undertaken by special procedures, including responding to individual complaints, conducting studies, providing advice on technical cooperation, and engaging in promotional activities. The special mechanisms are categorised according to thematic mandates and country mandates. Currently, there are 29 thematic and 13 country mandates under special procedures.[24] The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights provides staffing and logistical support to aid each mandate-holder in carrying out their work.

Special procedures include Working Groups

During its first session (1930 June 2006), the Human Rights Council decided to extend the special procedures mandates for one year, subject to further review. An intergovernmental working group has been established to assess the mandates and make recommendations for improving their effectiveness. Special procedures also include Working Groups made up of legal experts who monitor and investigate specific human rights concerns. There are currently four such groups:

There are currently four such groups:

Working Group on people of African descent Working Group on Arbitrary Detention Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances Working Group on the use of mercenaries to impede the right of peoples to selfdetermination

Special Procedure candidates

In 2008, The Human Rights Council elected 18 experts to make up its new Advisory Committee. In addition, The Council also approved candidates for its Special Procedures on:
the right to adequate housing, the right to food, human rights of indigenous people, sale of children, effects of economic reform policies, human rights in Myanmar, human rights in the Palestinian territories, human rights and extreme poverty, contemporary forms of slavery, arbitrary detention, enforced disappearances, people of African descent, human rights in Somalia and human rights defenders

list of appointed candidates:

Raquel Rolnik (Brazil), Special Rapporteur on the right to adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living, and on the right to non-discrimination in this context Olivier de Schutter (Belgium), Special Rapporteur on the right to food James Anaya (United States), Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people Najat M'jid Maala (Morocco), Special Rapporteur on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography Cephas Lumina (Zambia), Independent Expert on the effects of economic reform policies and foreign debt on the full enjoyment of human rights, particularly economic, social and cultural rights

 Thomas Ojea Quintana (Argentina), Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar; Richard Falk (United States), Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the "Disputed Palestinian Territories." Maria Magdalenan Sepulveda (Chile), Independent Expert on the question of human rights and extreme poverty Gulnara Shahinian (Armenia), Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of slavery, including its causes and consequences.[26] [edit

Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression

An amendment to the duties of the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, passed by the Human Rights Council on 28 March 2008. The additional duty is phrased thus: (d) To report on instances in which the abuse of the right of freedom of expression constitutes an act of racial or religious discrimination, comment No. 15 of the Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which stipulates that the prohibition of the dissemination of all ideas based upon racial superiority or hatred is compatible with the freedom of opinion and expression

Special Rapporteur
In terms of the finally cast votes, this was far from the most controversial of the 36 resolutions adapted by the 7'th session of the Council. The highest dissents concerned combating defamation of religions, with 21 votes for, 10 against, and 14 abstentions (resolution 19, pp. 9197), and the continued severe condemnation of and appointment of a Special Rapporteur for North Korea, with votes 227 and 18 abstentions (resolution 15, pp. 7880).[32] There were also varying degrees of dissent for most of the various reports criticising Israel the rather severe criticism of Myanmar (resolutions 31 and 32).,[29] and the somewhat less severe on Sudan (resolution 16).[32]

Universal Periodic Review

A key component of the Council consists in a periodic review of all 193 UN member states, called the Universal Periodic Review (UPR). The new mechanism is based on reports coming from different sources, one of them being contributions from NGOs. Each country's situation will be examined during a three-hour debate. The second half of the complete UPR cycle will take place until 2011,[37] after which the status of the Human Rights Council will be reviewed by the General Assembly.[38] The Universal Periodic Review is an evolving process; the Council, after the conclusion of the first review cycle, may review the modalities and the periodicity of this mechanism, based on best practices and lessons learned.[39]

 This document was elaborated by the Intergovernmental Working Group, open to all, mandated to develop the follow-up terms and conditions of the UPR procedure and give full effect to Decision 1/103 of the Human Rights Council. The following terms and procedures were set out: Reviews are to occur over a four-year period (48 countries per year). Accordingly, the 192 countries that are members of the United Nations shall normally all have such a "review" between 2008 and 2011;

 The order of review should follow the principles of universality and equal treatment; All Member States of the Council will be reviewed while they sit at the Council and the initial members of the Council will be first; The selection of the countries to be reviewed must respect the principle of equitable geographical allocation; The first Member States and the first observatory States to be examined will be selected randomly in each regional group in order to guarantee full compliance with the equitable geographical allocation. Reviews shall then be conducted alphabetically.

 Similar mechanisms exist in other organizations: International Atomic Energy Agency, Council of Europe, International Monetary Fund, Organization of American States, International Labour Bureau and the World Trade Organization.[40] Except for the tri-annual reports on development of human rights policies, that Member States have to submit to the Secretary General since 1956, the Human Rights Council UPR procedure constitutes a first in the area. It marks the end of the discrimination that had plagued the work of the Human Rights Commission and had caused it to be harshly criticised. Finally, this mechanism demonstrates and confirms the universal nature of human rights.

Overview
As of 2010, Israel had been condemned in 32 resolutions by the Council since its creation in 2006. The 32 resolutions comprised 48.1% of all resolutions passed by the Council.[41] By April 2007, the Council had passed nine resolutions condemning Israel, the only country which it had specifically condemned.[42] Toward Sudan, a country with human rights abuses as documented by the Council's working groups, it has expressed "deep concern.".[42] The council voted on 30 June 2006 to make a review of alleged human rights abuses by Israel a permanent feature of every council session. The Council's special rapporteur on the IsraeliPalestinian conflict is its only expert mandate with no year of expiry

 The resolution, which was sponsored by Organisation of the Islamic Conference, passed by a vote of 29 to 12 with five abstentions. Human Rights Watch urged it to look at international human rights and humanitarian law violations committed by Palestinian armed groups as well. Human Rights Watch called on the Council to avoid the selectivity that discredited its predecessor and urged it to hold special sessions on other urgent situations, such as that in Darfur.[43] The Special Rapporteur on the question of Palestine to the previous UNCHR, the current UNHRC and the General Assembly was, between 2001 and 2008, John Dugard. Bayefski quotes him as saying that his mandate is to "investigate human rights violations by Israel only, not by Palestinians".[44 Dugard was replaced in 2008 with Richard Falk, who has compared Israel's treatment of Palestinians with the Nazis' treatment of Jews during the Holocaust.[45][46][47] Like his predecessor, Falk's mandate only covers Israels human rights record.[48]

United States and UNHRC President

The Council's charter preserves the watchdog's right to appoint special investigators for countries whose human rights records are of particular concern, something many developing states have long opposed. A Council meeting in Geneva in 2007 caused controversy after Cuba and Belarus, both accused of abuses, were removed from a list of nine special mandates. The list, which included North Korea, Cambodia and Sudan, had been carried forward from the defunct Commission.[51] Commenting on Cuba and Belarus,the UN statement said that Ban noted "that not having a Special Rapporteur assigned to a particular country does not absolve that country from its obligations under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights."

 The UNHRC President Doru Costea responded: "I agree with him. The functioning of the Council must be constantly improved." He added that the Council must examine the behaviour of all parties involved in complex disputes and not place just one state under the magnifying glass. January 2008 decree The Council released a statement calling on Israel to stop its military operations in the Gaza Strip and to open the Strip's borders to allow the entry of food, fuel and medicine. The Council adopted the resolution by a vote of 30 to 1. 15 states abstained. "We believe that this council should deplore the fact that innocent civilians on both sides are suffering," Slovenian Ambassador Andrej Logar said on behalf of the seven EU states on the council.

March 2011 controversy

At the UNHRC's opening session in February 2011, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton criticized the council's "structural bias" against the State of Israel: "The structural bias against Israel including a standing agenda item for Israel, whereas all other countries are treated under a common item is wrong. And it undermines the important work we are trying to do together."[67]

 Chair of the United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R) said she will propose legislation making U.S. funding for the U.N. contingent on extensive reform. Her bill will also call for the U.S. to withdraw from the UNHRC, as "Israel is the only country on the council's permanent agenda, while abuses by rogue regimes like Cuba, China, and Syria are ignored."[69]

Defamation of religion and the United Nations

Defamation of religion is an issue that has been repeatedly addressed by some member states of the United Nations (UN) since 1999. Several non-binding resolutions have been voted on and accepted by the UN condemning "defamation of religion. The motions, sponsored on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference[1], aim to prohibit expression that would "fuel discrimination, extremism and misperception leading to polarization and fragmentation with dangerous unintended and unforeseen consequences " Islamic states have expressed concerns that Islam is sometimes associated with terrorism and human rights violations, especially after the attack on the twin towers, and argue that the resolutions are necessary to combat Islamophobia.[

'Combating defamation of religions'.[

On 24 November 2008, during the Sixty-third Session, the General Assembly's Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian & Cultural) approved a resolution entitled 'Combating defamation of religions'. The resolution requests "the Secretary-General to submit a report on the implementation of the present resolution, including on the possible correlation between defamation of religions and the upsurge in incitement, intolerance and hatred in many parts of the world, to the General Assembly at its sixty-fourth session." 85 states voted in favour of the resolution; 50 states voted against the resolution; 42 states abstained.

 ." The United States said that defamation of religion is a fundamentally flawed concept. Sweden, for the European Union, argued that international human rights law protects individuals, not institutions or religions. France insisted that the UN must not afford legal protection to systems of belief. Syria criticized the "typical and expected Western silence" on "acts of religious discrimination." Syria said "in real terms defamation means targeting Muslims."[39]

 2010 In March 2010, Pakistan again brought forward a resolution entitled "Combating defamation of religions" on behalf of the OIC.[2] The UNHRC passed the resolution on 25 March 2010 with 20 members voting in favour; 17 members voting against; 8 abstaining; and 2 absent

 2011 In March, 2011, the UN Human Rights Council has shifted from protecting beliefs to protection of believers in its resolution.[45] In July, 2011, the UN Human Rights Committee released a 52-paragraph statement, General Comment 34, concerning freedoms of opinion and expression. According to paragraph 48, "Prohibitions of displays of lack of respect for a religion or other belief system including blasphemy laws, are incompatible with the Covenant, except in the specific circumstances envisaged in article 20, paragraph 2, of the Covenant

Environmental protection
Environmental protection is a practice of protecting the environment, on individual, organizational or governmental levels, for the benefit of the natural environment and (or) humans. Due to the pressures of population and technology, the biophysical environment is being degraded, sometimes permanently. This has been recognized, and governments have begun placing restraints on activities that caused environmental degradation. Since the 1960s, activism by the environmental movement has created awareness of the various environmental issues.

 Protection of the environment is needed from various human activities. Waste, pollution, loss of biodiversity and the introduction of invasive species are some of the issues relating to environmental protection.

Evolving approaches to environmental protection

Discussion concerning environmental protection often focuses on the role of government, legislation and enforcement. However, in its broadest sense, environmental protection may be seen to be the responsibility of all people and not simply that of government. Decisions that impact the environment will ideally involve a broad range of stakeholders, including industry, indigenous groups, environmental group and community representatives.

 Further discussion on approaches to environmental protection is included on the pages related to natural resource management, environmental governance and environmental law.

Ecosystems approach

An ecosystems approach to resource management and environmental protection aims to consider the complex interrelationships of an entire ecosystem in decision making rather than simply responding to specific issues and challenges.

International environmental agreements

Many of the earths resources are especially vulnerable because they are influenced by human impacts across many countries. As a result of this, many attempts are made by countries to develop agreements that are signed by multiple governments to prevent damage or manage the impacts of human activity on natural resources.

Kyoto Protocol Commitment map 2010

 This can include agreements that impact factors such as climate, oceans, rivers and air pollution. These international environmental agreements are sometimes legally binding documents that have legal implications when they are not followed and, at other times, are more agreements in principle or are for use as codes of conduct. These agreements have a long history with some multinational agreements being in place from as early as 1910 in Europe, America and Africa.[8] Some of the most well-known multinational agreements include: the Kyoto Protocol, Vienna Convention on the Protection of the Ozone Layer and Rio Declaration on Development and Environment.

 The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has identified 17 megadiverse countries. The list includes six Latin American countries: Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, Peru and Venezuela. Mexico and Brazil stand out among the rest because they have the largest area, population and number of species. These countries represent a major concern for environmental protection because they have high rates cats of deforestation, ecosystems loss, pollution, and population growth.

Challenges in environmental protection

The main issues for developing countries like Brazil and Mexico are that protected areas suffer from encroachment and poor management. In Brazil challenges caused by human impacts. Logging and mining are potentially huge threats to protected areas. Between 1998 and 2009, 12,204 km2 of forest within protected areas was cleared, with 1,338 mining titles being granted and 10,348 awaiting approval . Developing countries need to allocate more money from their budgets if they hope to address these problems in environmental protection.

Bloc voting
Human rights groups say the council is being controlled by some Middle East and African nations, supported by China, Russia and Cuba, which protect each other from criticism.[71] This drew criticism from the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon at the ineffectiveness of the council, saying it had fallen short of its obligations. He urged countries to 'drop rhetoric' and rise above "partisan posturing and regional divides"[72] and get on with defending people around the world.[71] This follows criticism since the council was set up, where Israel has been condemned on most occasions and other incidences in the world such as Darfur, Tibet, North Korea and Zimbabwe have not been discussed at the council.[71] Ban Ki-Moon also appealed for the United States to fully join the council and play a more active role.[72

Position of the United States

In regard to the United Nations Human Rights Council, the position of the United States is: "human rights have been a cornerstone of American values since the country's birth and the United States is committed to support the work of the UN Commission in promoting the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.[74 ] U.S. President George W. Bush declared that the United States would not seek a seat on the Council, saying it would be more effective from the outside He did pledge, however, to support the Council financially. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said, "We will work closely with partners in the international community to encourage the council to address serious cases of human rights abuse in countries such as Iran, Cuba, Zimbabwe, Burma, Sudan, and North Korea."

 Spokesman Sean McCormack said the council has had a singular focus on Israel, while countries such as Cuba, Myanmar and North Korea have been spared scrutiny The most senior Republican member of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, supported the administration decision. Rather than standing as a strong defender of fundamental human rights, the Human Rights Council has faltered as a weak voice subject to gross political manipulation, she said.

 On 31 March 2009 the administration of Barack Obama announced that it would reverse the country's previous position and would join the UNHRC;[80] New Zealand has indicated its willingness not to seek election to the council to make room for the United States to run unopposed along with Belgium and Norway for the WEOG seats.

Sexual exploitation reported by UN Watch a NGO

UN Watch, the World YWCA, and the World Alliance of YMCAs published a statement against sexual exploitation and child pornography. "Today far too many children are sexually exploited and abused causing life-long damage. More than two million children are exploited in the multibillion-dollar sex industry each year and 1.2 million children are trafficked annually", the statement said.[77]

 Agence France-Presse has described UN Watch both as "a lobby group with strong ties to Israel"[13] and as a group which "champion[s] human rights worldwide