On 21 October 2009, the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Ms Navanetham Pillay, engaged in a lengthy and constructive dialogue with the Third Committee of the General Assembly. In her statement, she highlighted key achievements during the first year of her mandate, such as the outcome document from the Durban Review Conference, and outlined six thematic priorities that would guide her work over the next two years:
1. eliminating discrimination on the grounds of race, sex, religion and other marginalised groups;
2. ensuring the human rights of migrants;
3. protecting economic, social and cultural rights to combat inequalities and poverty;
4. protecting human rights in armed conflict, violence and insecurity;
5. combating impunity and strengthening accountability, rule of law and democratic societies; and
6. strengthening international human rights mechanisms and the progressive development of human rights law.

Given the strong criticism of a number of special procedures in the Third Committee this year, it was not surprising that some States (Malaysia, Pakistan) pressed the High Commissioner to comment on how her office would ensure that mandate holders upheld the Code of Conduct for special procedures. In response, she was quick to assure States that all special procedures took the Code seriously and through mechanisms including their Coordinating Committee, were committed to increasing their dialogue and cooperation with members of the Human Rights Council. She reminded the Committee that in 2008 an internal advisory procedure was set up to review practices and working methods relating to the Code, and OHCHR had begun a practice of organising information sessions for incoming mandate holders to familiarise them with their mandates, working methods and the Code.

Although most Member States congratulated the High Commissioner on the first year of her mandate and were in broad agreement with her vision and agenda, some used the interactive dialogue to point out areas where a different approach was needed. Sometimes these were familiar suggestions, such as China’s view that the Human Rights Council should provide supervision and guidance to the High Commissioner and her office, or the call from some States (Cuba, India, Pakistan) that more needed to be done to achieve equitable geographic representation amongst staff in the High Commissioner’s office (OHCHR).

In other cases, new points were raised, such as the important work carried out by OHCHR’s 55 field offices, particularly in their capacity as early warning mechanisms (Australia, New Zealand, UK, US). Expressions of appreciation from States such as Mexico and Columbia (which each host an OHCHR field office), and high praise from the UK in relation to the achievements of the field office in Nepal, provided a strong counterpoint to proposals in the Third Committee last year by the African Group and members of the Non-Aligned Movement, which unsuccessfully sought to limit OHCHR’s authority to establish and oversight its own field offices. Sudan was the only State to revisit this debate, criticising the ‘multitude’ of human rights mechanisms focussed on developing countries, but welcoming the creation of an office in Belgium.

The High Commissioner was direct in her response to questions about her own level of independence, reminding States that her mandate was set out in a resolution of the General Assembly, thereby politely implying that any modifications would require a new resolution from the Assembly. She emphasised her willingness to engage in an open dialogue with regional groups and individual States and reaffirmed her commitment to working with the Council in a cooperative and supportive manner. She also reiterated her commitment to ‘truth, impartiality and integrity, with no toleration for double standards.’

Other points of discussion that prompted constructive suggestions from the High Commissioner included:
- 2011 review of the Human Rights Council: Member States of the General Assembly need to engage in the review process as early as possible and in an inclusive and consultative spirit. The question that needed to be addressed in New York was the status of the Council vis a vis the Assembly. The High Commissioner called for discussions to take place at the regional level prior to the Assembly formally taking up the matter in the latter part of 2010.

- The universal periodic review (UPR): linkages between the UPR, the treaty body system and the special procedures needed to be strengthened to ensure that the UPR became an effective catalyst for the implementation of human rights at the country level. All of these mechanisms faced serious resource constraints as their workload increased. OHCHR was factoring UPR recommendations into its plans for country-level engagement, along with its role in providing technical co-operation to States where they requested assistance in relation to the UPR process.

- Treaty bodies: States should take more advantage of the capacity of treaty bodies to act as early warning mechanisms. The ‘early warning and urgent action procedure’ of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), and the field-oriented mandate of the Sub-Committee on the Prevention of Torture, provided models in this respect.

- New UN agency for women’s rights and new post of Special Representative of the Secretary-General on sexual violence: in a pointed message to the Secretary-General, the High Commissioner advised she wanted to ‘participate’ in the selection process for the Under Secretary-General to head the gender entity, and the appointment of the SRSG.