The Human Rights Council Advisory Committee (the Committee) held its 7th session in Geneva from 5 to 12 August 2011. On 10 August, under agenda item 3 dealing with requests from the Human Rights Council (the Council), the Committee considered a request stemming from Council resolution 16/3 ‘Promoting human rights and fundamental freedoms through a better understanding of traditional values of humankind’.  The resolution requests the Committee to produce a study on ‘how a better understanding and appreciation of traditional values of freedom, dignity, and responsibility can contribute to the promotion and protection of human rights’.   

Resolution 16/3 was presented to the Council in March 2011 by the Russian Federation. It was adopted with 24 votes in favour, 14 against, and 7 abstentions. The resolution marked another step in the Russian Federation’s attempt to legitimise the concept of traditional values within the international human rights discourse.

At the 12th session of the Council in September 2009, resolution 12/21 was adopted, requesting the High Commissioner to convene a workshop that would explore how a better understanding of traditional values can promote human rights and fundamental freedoms. The workshop was held in October 2010. Several panellists at that workshop warned about giving legitimacy to value systems that are not compatible with international human rights norms.

During the 7th session of the Advisory Committee, the Russian delegation addressed members, and emphasised that its intention in promoting the concept of traditional values is not to undermine the universality of human rights, but rather to use the framework of traditional values to promote human rights.

The difficulty with this approach, however, was made particularly clear at the 17th session of the Council, during the adoption of resolution 17/19 ‘Human rights, sexual orientation and gender identity’. During explanations of vote on this resolution, it was evident that several States have a conservative understanding of the universality of human rights, according to which it is not self-evident that universality of human rights means that human rights also apply to all regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. According to Pakistan (speaking on behalf of the OIC) the resolution attempts to establish new rights by misinterpreting the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, and in doing so jeopardises the entire international human rights framework. Echoing the point, Nigeria, claiming to speak on behalf of the African Group (despite the fact that the resolution was led by South Africa), stated that the resolution falls outside of international human rights principles.

In this context, a traditional values approach, and the particular emphasis that has been placed on the ‘family’ as a vehicle for promoting this approach, is extremely worrying. Should it be legitimised as a tool for promoting human rights, it would create a focal point around which opposition to true universality of human rights would coalesce.

NGOs addressed the Committee during the meeting, and reiterated these points, calling on members to clearly set out in their study the risks inherent in a traditional values approach. While members seemed to be receptive to these points, there is still a need to continue to raise these points and ensure that the final report cannot be used to legitimise the concept of traditional values.

In its decision 7/1 the Committee established a ten-person drafting group, with Mr Ahmer Bilal Soofi as the Chairperson and the Russian Committee member, Mr Vladimir Kartashkin as Rapporteur. The drafting group has invited NGOs and other interested stakeholders to submit suggestions relating to the structure of the report, and the substance. ARC International is compiling these suggestions at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it for submission to the drafting group by early September. 

A report on the 5th session, 2 - 6 August, 2010

A report on the 4th session, 25 - 29 January, 2010

A report on the 3rd session, 3 - 7 August, 2009

Analytical overviews earlier sessions are available here.

General Assembly Resolution 60/251, establishing the Human Rights Council, provided that it should ‘maintain a system of … expert advice’, as had been provided by the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights to the Commission. The use of the term ‘system of expert advice’ and the absence of any reference to the continuation of the former Sub-Commission meant that the Council was not required, under the terms of the resolution, to retain the Sub-Commission. Accordingly, the Sub-Commission was abolished and held its last session in August 2006, and was replaced by the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee.

In its Resolution 5/1, the Council established the Advisory Committee as its 'think-tank', destined to provide expertise to the Council 'in the manner and form requested by the Council, focusing mainly on studies and research-based advice.' Therefore, the powers of the Advisory Committee are limited compared to those of the Sub-Commission. As one observer has put it, the new system of expert advice provides 'expertise without initiative' (see Meghna Abraham, Building the New Human Rights Council, Outcome and analysis of the institution-building year, Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, Occasional papers, No. 33/ August 2007).

The Advisory Committee meets for 'up to two sessions for a maximum of 10 working days per year.'  You can read a fact sheet prepared by the Committee here.

> top

Members of the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee

The Council elected the first set of members for the Advisory Committee at its 7th session in March 2008 (see ISHR Daily Update of 26 March 2008). Given that the number of candidates for the African States, the Asian States, and the Latin American and Caribbean States corresponded to the number of seats allocated for each of these groups (‘clean slates’), the 13 experts from these groups were elected by acclamation. The election of candidates of the two other groups, the Eastern European group, and the Western European and Other Group, was done by secret ballot. The members for of the Advisory Committee are as follows:

Note: Members of the Advisory Committee denoted with (*) were elected for one-year terms, those with (**) for two-year terms and those with (***) for full terms of three years.

African Group

Ms Halima Embarek Warzazi (Morocco) *
Ms Mona Zulficar (Egypt) **
Mr Bernards Andrews Nyamwaya Mudho (Kenya) **
Mr Dheerujlall Seetulsingh (Mauritius) ***
Mr Baba Kura Kaigama (Nigeria) ***

Asian Group

Mr Shiqiu Chen (China) *
Mr Shigeki Sakamoto (Japan) **
Ms Chung Chinsung (Republic of Korea) **
Mr Ansar Ahmed Burney (Pakistan) ***
Ms Purificacion V. Quisumbing (the Philippines) ***

Eastern European States

Mr Vladimir Kartashkin, with 42 votes (Russian Federation) **
Mr Latif Hüseynov, with 30 votes (Azerbaijan) ***

Latin American and Caribbean States

Mr Miguel Alfonso Martínez (Cuba) *
Mr José Antonio Bengoa Cabello (Chile) **
Mr Héctor Felipe Fix Fierro (Mexico) ***

Western European and Other States

Mr Jean Ziegler, with 40 votes (Switzerland) *
Mr Wolfgang Stefan Heinz, with 24 votes (Germany) **
Mr Emmanuel Decaux, with 24 voters (France) ***

Further reading

• Official Advisory Committee website
• On the stakes involved in the institution-building process and the transition from the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights to the Advisory Committee, see Meghna Abraham, A New Chapter for Human Rights, ISHR and the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung (Geneva, 2006).

For the outcome of the institution-building process in relation to the Advisory Committee, see any of the following publications: 

• ISHR Human Rights Monitor 2006 and Human Rights Monitor 2007. In our Publications section , you will also find reports on the institution-building working group which elaborated the basis for the new Advisory Committee
• Meghna Abraham, Building the New Human Rights Council, Outcome and analysis of the institution-building year, Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, Occasional papers, No. 33/ August 2007
• Rachel Brett, Neither Mountain nor Molehill, UN Human Rights Council: One Year On, Quaker United Nations Office (Geneva, August 2007)