The decision was made behind closed doors. This information shouldn’t have gotten out. Yet everyone is in on it. Iran and Uzbekistan have escaped from being banned from the Human Rights Council this week. Overwhelmed with individual complaints, both countries were examined by their counterparts within the scope of the confidential procedure 1503.
This mysterious and obscure mechanism allows anyone in the world to file a complaint with the UN - 20,000 dossiers are handed in each year in Geneva, where they are filed into categories according to the exaction. When the accumulated number of complaints shows flagrant and widespread violations, Member States decide to appoint an expert to conduct an investigation in the country. And if the ensuing recommendations are not followed, the file is unclassified and the country is publicly accused.
At least, this is how it’s supposed to work. In fact, collusion and schemes between countries take precedent. That’s why Iran wasn’t denounced and the French expert appointed to investigate Uzbekistan was removed from her position this week. The entire procedure was postponed to next February... in exchange for promisses to “cooperate” with the UN.
“It could have been worse, notes a diplomat in Geneva. There are many alliances between the 47 member states. Both countries could have been cleared through a vote and everything would have been lost, even though everyone knows the seriousness of the violations for which they are responsible. We lost the negotiations, but at least their cases still exist.”

Will Switzerland be able to untangle this mess?

The example of Iran and Uzbekistan illustrates how “procedure 1503” functioned within the former Commission on Human Rights. A famous example of this was when the USSR, which bought wheat from Argentina, had put a freeze on complaints filed by victims of General Videla’s dictatorship. Today, this confidential procedure is to be reviewed within the the new Council. The task was entrusted to Switzerland which is to untangle this mess.
So, on Tuesday, the Swiss ambassador Blaise Godet identified the main points of dispute concerning this mechanism. Should confidentiality be maintained throughout the procedure or should secrecy be unveiled if a State refuses to take action. Shouldn’t there be more transparency for the plaintiffs? At present, they only receive a formal acknowledgment of receipt and know nothing about the procedure.
Another point that needs to be addressed: Does the plaintiff have to appeal to all national procedures before being allowed to file a complaint with the UN? Of course, some northern States say. Absolutely not is what most Latin American countries rebuke. “As a general rule, most violating countries don’t even have an independent legal system, so it’s ridiculous to require victims to file a complaint with a failing system”, notes the consulted diplomat.
Another point: Is 1503 redundant with regard to other complaint mechanisms? “With regard to this and in my personal opinion, I think that even if legal redundancy isn’t welcome in general, in this case it is better to have double protection than to have loopholes”, declared the Swiss ambassador who is still in the process of consulting Member States.

An alibi... or a good way pressuring violators

In the end, why should such a mechanism be maintained when it seems that all it’s worth is to serve as an alibi for violating countries? “Some states are indeed very sceptical, explains an expert. It’s important to approach this issue in an intelligent manner and to not take this procedure out of context. This is one of many tools that is used to exert pressure on governments. It’s not going to change a regime. 1503 does however provide more information on the victims. And a country’s methodology can be better defined when the main types of violations have been identified.”
For this diplomat, this information is essential and can be used when countries come up for their universal periodic review - which has been presented as the novelty of the new Council.