October 2006/N° 11 Second Session of the UN Human Rights Council High hopes were placed by all sides on the second session of the Human Rights Council(HRC). Did it live up to the expectations or just lead to disappointment? As always when hopes are high, the reality turned out to be a mix of both. Expectations After the first regular session provided for the opening and celebration of the newly created UN body, the first and second special sessions had already lowered some of the overly enthusiastic appraisals of the new Council. A new kind of selectivity seemed to dominate the choice of the topics, but drawing from the very positive spirit of the inaugural session, expectations for the second session, held from 18 Sept to 6 Oct, were, that a certain productive routine could be established. This did not happen as of now. But the reason for this was partly given already by the setup of this session. The Council had before it all the reports it had inherited from the last session of the Commission on Human Rights. Two thirds of the session time were therefore consumed by catching up on those pending reports. Due to the very limited time, this session did again not allow for the setting of precedents and still has to be evaluated under the premises of the transition. Political Mood Similar to the two special sessions which took place between the regular sessions, diplomats only reluctantly arranged themselves with the new realities and requirements of the HRC. The power relations between the regional groups have changed compared to the Commission on Human Rights. 1 This was first conceived as a welcome 1 The number of members and the regional distribution have changed from Commission to Council. For more detail see: FES Fact Sheet break with the deadlocked structures and political disputes of the discredited Commission. Yet, the danger emerges that the new power relations might only have brought a change in topics, not in behaviour. While the new majority of the African, Asian and“like-minded” states does not see a necessity for substantial concessions in negotiating resolutions, the Western Group seems to be slow in finding a concerted way of addressing issues that are tabled by the other side. The mere fact that it is- in general terms – possible to speak about“sides” reminds in a painful way of the old Commission and shows that the HRC is not a unified body, immune to international political disputes, like some might have hoped. The fact that the planned omnibus resolution was not adopted, but instead 44 individual draft resolutions were tabled, shows a high level of dissent within the Council. Despite his efforts before and during the session, the HRC President, Ambassador Luis Alfonso de Alba of Mexico, could not unify the diverging positions. Due to this there are different evaluations of his presidency – while the majority of NGOs are grateful for the high level of involvement that was granted to them, some observers believe that a stronger leadership could have found an approach to unify the positions of the delegations. Reports and Interactive Dialogue The more than 40 Special Procedures(SP) reports were split into two parts: first thematic, then country mandates. While the interactive dialogue “Inaugural Session of the Human Rights Council, FES Geneva, July 2006 on www.fes-geneva.org and http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/mem bership.htm.