1 The fifty-eighth session took place in Geneva from March 18 to April 26, 2002, under the chairmanship ofAmbassador Krzysztof Jakubowski of Poland. More than thirty-seven hundred individuals were in attendance, representing the fifty-three member states of the Commission, ninety-four observer states, and 247 nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). The Report of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) on its Fifty-eighth Session,2002 UN ESCOR, Supp. No. 3, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2002/200 [hereinafter CHR Report], contains the resolutionsand decisions of the Commission, as well as a listing of the participants. Many of the CHR materials (including the Report and summary records) discussed or cited in this Note are available online at the Web site of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, <http://www.unhchr.ch>. See also Statistics Relating to the 58th Session of the Commission, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2003/12.

2 The Economic and Social Council is composed of fifty-four member states based on a geographical distribution.Ambassador Ivan Šimonović of Croatia served as the president of ECOSOC at the 2002 session. The resolutions and decisions of the ECOSOC are contained in UN Doc. E/2002/INF/2/Add.2. The ECOSOC voting results are set forth in UN Press Releases ECOSOC/6026 (July 24, 2002) and ECOSOC/6027 (July 25, 2002). The COSOC documents are available online at the Web site of the United Nations, <http://www.un.org>. The ECOSOC resolutions and decisions are also published in 2002 UN ESCOR, Supp. No. 1, UN Doc. E/2002/99.

3 Also like similar essays on the 1994 through 2001 sessions, this is a personal reflection on the Commission’s and ECOSOC’s sessions and not a complete record. See Crook, John R., The Fiftieth Session of the UN Commission on Human Rights, 88 AJIL 806 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Crook, John R., The Fifty-first Session of the UN Commission on Human Rights, 90 AJIL 126 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dennis, Michael J., The Fifty-second Session of the UN Commission on Human Rights, 91 AJIL 167 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dennis, Michael J., The Fifty-third Session of the UN Commission on Human Rights, 92 AJIL 112 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar [hereinafter Dennis, 53d Session]; Dennis, Michael J., The Fifty-fourth Session of the UN Commission on Human Rights, 93 AJIL 246 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar [hereinafter Dennis, 54th Session]; Dennis, Michael J., The Fifty-fifth Session of the UN Commission on Human Rights, 94 AJIL 189 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dennis, Michael J., The Fifty-sixth Session of the UN Commission on Human Rights, 95 AJIL 213 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dennis, Michael J., The Fifty-seventh Session ofthe UN Commission on Human Rights, 96 AJIL 181 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar [hereinafter Dennis, 57th Session].

4 CHR Res. 2002/46 (Apr. 23); Report, supra note 1, paras. 393, 404.

5 CHR Report, supra note 1, paras. 395, 400–01.

6 UN Doc. E/CN.4/2002/SR.51, para. 45.

7 CHR Res. 2002/34 (Apr. 22).

8 CHR Report, supra note 1, paras. 341, 344.

9 Marie Gervais-Vidricaire, representative of Canada, Explanation of Vote (Apr. 22, 2002) (on file with author). See generally UN Doc. E/CN.4/2002/SR.50, paras. 53–61.

10 CHR Res. 2002/35 (Apr. 23). The votes in 2000 and 2001 were 27–13–12 and 33–14–6, respectively. Dennis, 57th Session, supra note 3, at 183.

11 Savitri Kunadi, representative of India (Mar. 20) (on file with author).

12 Joaquín Pérez-Villanuevay Tovar, ambassador of Spain, Explanation of Vote on behalf of the European Union (Apr. 22, 2002) (on file with author). See generally UN Doc. E/CN.4/2002/SR.50, paras. 62–77.

13 Pérez-Villanueva y Tovar, supra note 12 (emphasis omitted). Both the United Kingdom and the United States had objected to an assertion in the 1997 Commission text on terrorism that terrorist acts fall within the definition of acts of aggression. Dennis, 53d Session, supra note 3, at 115.

14 See CHR Report, supra note 1, paras. 566–67 for the resolution.

15 UN Doc. E/CN.4/2002/SR.58, paras. 47–48. The high commissioner had urged that such a mechanism be established at the outset of the Commission. UN Doc. E/CN.4/2002/SR.4, paras. 1–13. For her report, see UN Doc.E/CN.4/2002/18. In response, the United States urged “member states to cooperate fully with the anti-terrorist requirements established in UN Security Council resolutions 1368 and 1373, to consider acceding to all 12 of the United Nations conventions on terrorism, and to work cooperatively in the UN Sixth Committee on combating terrorism.” Statement by Ambassador Kevin E. Moley (Mar. 20, 2002) (on file with author).

16 GA Res. 57/219 (Dec. 18, 2002).

17 In this regard, a number of the Commission’s special procedures, including the special rapporteurs ontorture, the independence of judges and lawyers, and migrant workers, as well as its Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, have criticized U.S. practices concerning the deprivation of liberty of persons detained in U.S. prisonsin conjunction with the U.S. investigation of the terrorist acts of September 11, 2001. See UN Docs. E/CN.4/2003/68/Add.1, paras. 1888–1906; E/CN.4/2003/65, paras. 38–41, 48; E/CN.4/2003/85/Add.1, paras. 254–73; UN Doc. E/CN.4/2003/8, para. 64, respectively. In December 2002, the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention issueda legal opinion concerning the detention of persons at Guantánamo Bay, holding that (1) they were entided to the protections of the Third Geneva Convention, including the right to have their detention reviewed and the right to a fair trial, so long as a “competent tribunal” has not issued a ruling denying their prisoner-of-war status; and (2) they were entitled to the protections of Articles 9 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, if the competent tribunal invalidates the prisoner-of-war status. Id. In January 2003, the Commission’s special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions concluded that the use of a U.S.-controlledPredator drone aircraft to kill six men while traveling in Yemen by car in November 2002 constitutes “a clear caseof extrajudicial killing.” UN Doc. E/CN.4/2003/3, paras. 37–39. The United States” response to the GuantanamoBay and Yemen allegations has been that its actions were appropriate under the international law of armed conflictand that the Commission and its special procedures have no mandate to address the matter. See letters of the United States to the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention dated April 2, 2003, and to the special rapporteur on summary executions dated April 22, 2003 (on file with author).

18 CHR Dec. 2002/110 (Apr. 25); ECOSOC Dec. 2002/277 (July 25).

19 UN Doc. E/CN.4/2002/107, paras. 37, 39, 57–58, 109–17. The Sub-Commission rapporteur appended a draft declaration on human social responsibilities to his final report. UN Doc. E/CN.4/2003/105.

20 CHR Res. 2002/77 (Apr. 25).

21 CHR Report, supra note 1, para. 556. The votes during the three preceding years were as follows: 30–11–12 in 1999, 27–13–12 in 2000, and 27–18–7 in 2001. CHR Res. 1999/61 (Apr. 28); CHR Res. 2000/65 (Apr. 26); CHR Res. 2001/68 (Apr. 25), respectively. Dennis, 57th Session, supra note 3, at 184–85.

22 CHR Report, supra note 1, para. 554; UN Doc. E/CN.4/2002/SR.56, paras. 96–99.

23 The statement is contained in UN Doc. E/CN.4/2002/198. See also Dennis, 57th Session, supra note 3, at 184.While few industrial countries still impose the death penalty, a majority of UN members retain the death penalty forthe most serious offenses. Report of the Secretary-General on Capital Punishment, UN Doc. E/CN. 15/2001/10.

24 CHR Res. 2002/36, para. 7 (Apr. 22) (Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions) (adopted by 36–2-14);CHR Res. 2002/47, para. 19 (Apr. 23) (Human Rights in the Administration of Justice, in Particular Juvenile Justice);CHR Res. 2002/92, para. 31 (Apr. 26) (Rights of the Child). CHR Res. 2002/77, supra note 20, also calledfor an end to the juvenile death penalty.

25 The Secretary-General has reported that the laws of at least fifteen countries currently permit the imposition of the death penalty for crimes committed by individuals under the age of eighteen. Report of the Secretary-Generalon Capital Punishment, supra note 23, para. 99. In the United States, seventeen states permit the death penaltyto be imposed for crimes committed by individuals aged sixteen at the time of the offense, while five states providefor a seventeen-year-old minimum. Streib, Victor L., The Juvenile Death Penalty Today, at <http://www.law.onu.edu/faculty/streib/juvdeath.htm> (last modified Jan. 9, 2003)+(last+modified+Jan.+9,+2003)>Google Scholar. For U.S. constitutional restraints, compare Thompsonv. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 815 (1988) (execution of offenders aged fifteen or younger at the time of their crime prohibited by Eighth Amendment), with Stanford v. Kentucky, 492 U.S. 361 (1989) (Eighth Amendment does not prohibit imposition of the death penalty for the most serious offenses committed by juveniles aged sixteen or seventeen at the time of the offense). Recently, the Supreme Court, by a 5–4 vote, refused to reconsider its decision in Stanford. In re Stanford, 123 S.Ct. 472 (2002).

26 UN Doc. A/S–27/19/Rev.1, para. 44 (8) (2002), available at <http://www.un.org/events/conferences.htm>.

27 U.S. reservation to Article 6(5) of the Covenant, 138 Cong. Rec. 8070 (1992)Google Scholar.

28 Joaquín Pérez-Villanueva y Tovar, ambassador of Spain, statement on behalf of the EU (Apr. 25) (on file with author).

29 U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Capital Punishment Statistics, available at <http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cp.htm> (last modified Jan. 8, 2003)+(last+modified+Jan.+8,+2003)>Google Scholar.

30 CHR Res. 2002/68 (Apr. 25); ECOSOC Dec. 2002/270 (July 25). At the Commission, the resolution was considered under agenda item 6 on racism and all other forms of discrimination.

31 The Commission has adopted a resolution or resolutions on racism each year since 1980. Resolutions on the issue were subject to a vote only from 1980 to 1983. CHR Res. 14 (XXXVI) (1980) (33–0-8); CHR Res. 7 (XXXVII)(1981) (32–0-8); CHR Res. 1982/11 (34–0-8); CHR Res. 1983/13 (41–0).

32 See generally UN Doc. E/CN.4/2002/SR.55, paras. 98–115. For a summary of the debate in ECOSOC, see UN Press Release ECOSOC/6028, at 12–13 (July 25, 2002).

33 The naming of the special rapporteur was especially controversial. Under the established rules of the Commission, these appointments are made by its chairman and not in a resolution. See CHR Dec. 2002/114 (Apr. 26). A Nigerian amendment naming Diene passed by a vote of 26–14–13. UN Doc. E/CN.4/2002/SR.56, paras. 2–12. The European Union, in explaining its vote, stated that while Diene was eminently qualified for the position, as a matter of principle, politicizing the appointment process by naming the mandate holder in a resolution erodesthe actual and perceived independence of the expert. Id., para. 4. For the report of the new rapporteur, see UN Doc. E/CN.4/2003/24.

34 Marie Gervais-Vidricaire, representative of Canada, Explanation of Vote, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2002/SR.55, para. 107.

35 Australia, Explanation of Vote, UN Press Release ECOSOC/6027, supra note 2, at 13.

36 United States, Explanation of Vote (July 25, 2002) (on file with author).

37 CHR Res. 2002/36 (Apr. 22). The Commission has adopted a resolution on the subject each year since 1982.The resolution was voted on only in the first year. CHR Res. 1982/29 (33–1-8).

38 UN Doc. E/CN.4/2002/SR.50, para. 87.

39 Id., para. 82; UN Doc. E/CN.4/2002/SR.51, para. 81.

40 UN Doc. E/CN.4/2002/SR.50, para. 83. A similar dispute later erupted in the Third Committee of the General Assembly where the resolution was subject to thirteen voted amendments seeking, inter alia, deletion of the references to sexual orientation. The amendments were all rejected. GA Press Releases SHC/3730 (Nov. 22, 2002) and 3731 (Nov. 25, 2002). The resolution was adopted in the Third Committee by a vote of 112–0-48. GA Res. 57/214 (Dec. 18, 2002).

41 The special rapporteur’s report is contained in UN Doc. E/CN.4/2002/74. Her report for 2003 is substantially similar in scope. UN Doc. E/CN.4/2003/3, supra note 17.

42 CHR Res. 2002/36, supra note 37, op. para. 12.

43 Dennis, 54th Session, supra note 3, at 248.

44 CHR Res. 2002/33 (Apr. 22); ECOSOC Res. 2002/27 (July 24); GA Res. 57/199 (Dec. 18, 2002). Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Dec. 18, 2002, 42 ILM 26 (2003) [hereinafter Torture Protocol].

45 Torture Protocol, supra note 44, Art. 19.

46 Id., Arts. 11–16. For the rationale for creating a new mechanism, see text following note 99 infra.

47 Geneva Conventions for the Protection of Victims of War, Aug. 12, 1949, common Art. 10/10/10/11, 6 UST 3114, 3217, 3316, 3516, 75 UNTS 31, 85, 135, 287, respectively.

48 European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and In human or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Nov. 26, 1987, 27 ILM 1152 (1988), available at <http://www.cpt.coe.int/en/docsref.htm>. To date, the European Torture Convention has been ratified by forty-four European states. Web site, id See generally Cassese, Antonio, A NewApproach to Human Rights: The European Convention for the Prevention of Torture, 83 AJIL 128 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

49 Report of the Working Group on a Draft Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2002/78, paras. 57–65 (United States), 66–68 (Egypt), 69 (Russian Federation), 70–73 (Saudi Arabia), 74–76 (China), 77–83 (Japan), 88 (Cuba), 89 (India), 91 (Syria), 92 (Kuwait), 97 (Israel), 98 (Algeria), and 108–09 (ArabGroup) [hereinafter WG Protocol Report].

50 For a summary of the debate in the Commission, see CHR Report, supra note 1, paras. 331–40; UN Doc. E/CN.4/2002/SR.50, paras. 11–52; UN Press Release HR/CN/02/49 (Apr. 22, 2002).

51 For the discussion of the debate in ECOSOC and the Third Committee, see UN Press Release ECOSOC/6026, supra note 2, at 22–25 and GA Press Release SHC/3719 (Nov. 7, 2002). The vote in the Third Committee was 104–8-37.

52 Article 8 of the original Costa Rican proposal contained this requirement. UN Doc. E/CN.4/1991/66.

53 European Torture Convention, supra note 48, Art. 8(1). An EU proposal submitted at the 2001 session of the working group contained the same provision. WG Protocol Report, supra note 49, Annex 11 (D), Art. 9.

54 WG Protocol Report, supra note 49, paras. 21–22, 25, 108.

55 The Latin American proposal is contained in id., Annex II (C). For the debate on the proposal, see id., paras.13–43; Report of the Working Group on a Draft Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2001/67, paras. 19–27.

56 Torture Protocol, supra note 44, Art. 13; see also WG Protocol Report, supra note 49, para. 96 (Argentine statement that the chairperson’s text did not provide for ad hoc visits).

57 For the debate on financing, see WG Protocol Report, supra note 49, paras. 32–35; Report of the Working Group on a Draft Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1996/28, paras. 73–101.

58 Torture Protocol, supra note 44, Art. 25. The United States later proposed an amendment in the Third Committee which would have required that all expenses for the implementation of the protocol be borne exclusively by states parties. The proposal was rejected by a vote of 11–98–37. GA Press Release SHC/3719, supra note 51.

59 Id., Arts. 29, 30.

60 WG Protocol Report, supra note 49, paras. 38, 40.

61 Gervais-Vidricaire, supra note 9; see also WG Protocol Report, supra note 49, para. 85 (Switzerland stating that “it would be problematic for a federal State like Switzerland to accept the obligation to institute one or severalnational mechanisms for the prevention of torture”).

62 Dennis, Michael J., U.S. delegation, Explanation of Position (July 24, 2002)Google Scholar.

63 UN Doc. E/CN.4/1991/66, at 5.

64 7th General Report on the CPT’s Activities Covering the Period 1 January to 31 December 1996, para. 21 (Aug. 22, 1997), available at <http://www.cpt.coe.int/en/annual/rep-07.htm>.

65 The budget for UN treaty bodies is determined through the normal biennial budget cycle and is subject to negotiations in the Fifth Committee of the General Assembly.

66 Bayefsky, Anne F., The UN Human Rights Treaty System: Universality at the Crossroads 8, 92–95, 634–36 (2001)Google Scholar; Schmidt, Markus, Servicing and Financing Human Rights Supervision, in The Future of Un Human Rights Treaty Monitoring 481, 482–87 (Alston, Philip & Crawford, James eds., 2000)Google Scholar.

67 The current UN budget for the Committee Against Torture is $172, 500, while the budget for the European Torture Committee is nearly $4 million. Council of Europe, Programme of Activities for 2002, at 30–33 (Jan. 2, 2002)(on file with author).68 Note by the Secretary-General on Effective Implementation of Human Rights Instruments, UN Doc. A/57/56, para. 21 (2002) (Committee Against Torture can conduct only one inquiry/visit per year because the procedure is ‘resource intensive’). Additionally, the Human Rights Committee in each of the last five years has requested and been denied funds to conduct one yearly visit. 1 Report of the Human Rights Committee, UN Doc. A/56/40, para. 202 (2001).

69 WG Protocol Report, supra note 49, paras. 33–34. Costa Rica, in introducing the protocol at the Commission, asserted that “[i]f only one human being could be freed from torture, that man or woman would be worth all the resources of the United Nations.’ UN Press Release HR/CN/02/49, supra note 50. Other states, including the United States, had repeatedly requested that states review the financial implications of the proposal. WG Protocol Report, supra, para. 32.

70 Bayefsky, supra note 66, at 7.

71 Cuban texts included those on structural adjustments and foreign debt, CHR Res. 2002/29 (Apr. 22) (29–15–9); right of peoples to peace, CHR Res. 2002/71 (Apr. 25) (33–15–5); promotion of a democratic and equitable international order, CHR Res. 2002/72 (Apr. 25) (32–15–6); international solidarity, CHR Res. 2002/73 (Apr. 25) (38–6-15); promotion of the enjoyment of the cultural rights of everyone, CHR Res. 2002/26 (Apr. 22) (adopted without a vote). Cuba also successfully supported adoption of two Sub-Commission decisions on the realization of the right to drinking water and sanitation, CHR Dec. 2002/105 (Apr. 22) (37–1-15), and the establishment of a social forum, CHR Dec. 2002/106 (Apr. 22) (35–3-15). UN Doc. E/CN.4/2002/SR.49, paras. 60–74. Identical Sub-Commission proposals had been rejected at the 2001 session of the Commission. CHR Decs. 2001/103, 2001/104 (both Apr. 23). ECOSOC, at its July 25 meeting, approved the Commission’s decisions on structural adjustments and foreign debt by a vote of 24–20–7 (ECOSOC Dec. 2002/257) and on the social forum by a vote of 33–3-17 (ECOSOC Dec. 2002/276).

72 CHR Res. 2002/28 (Apr. 22) (38–15); CHR Res. 2002/22 (Apr. 22) (38–6-9); and CHR Res. 2002/27 (Apr. 22) (37–14–2), respectively. ECOSOC subsequently approved the CHR decision on globalization by a vote of 31–20. ECOSOC Dec. 2002/256 (July 25).

73 ECOSOC Dec. 2002/255 (July 25).

74 Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development, Plan of Implementation, para. 38 (a), UN Doc. A/CONF.199/20*, UN Sales No. E.03.II.A.1 (2002).

75 UN Doc. E/CN.4/2002/58, paras. 120, 123. His 2003 report is to the same effect. He also supports creation of a new right to water. UN Doc. E/CN.4/2003/54, paras. 30, 36–51.

76 Row Grows over GM Food Aid for Africa, Independent (London), Oct. 19, 2002, at 19 Google Scholar, available in LEXIS, News Library, Curnws File.

77 Itano, Nicole, Even Hungry Africa Wary of Gene-Modified Food, Christian Sci. Monitor, Aug. 6, 2002, at 1 Google Scholar. The United States later charged that the special rapporteur had misused his office in “encourag[ing] governments to deny food to their hungry citizens,” and that “[b]y ignoring both science and the considered policies of the United Nations [he bore] responsibility for placing millions in greater peril.” Sichan Siv, ambassador of the United States, Statement in the Third Committee of the General Assembly (Nov. 11, 2002), available at <http://www.un.int/usa/food_agr.htm>.

78 CHR Res. 2002/21 (Apr. 22) (Germany); CHR Res. 2002/23 (Apr. 22) (Portugal); CHR Res. 2002/30 (Apr. 22) (France), respectively. Portugal also sponsors an annual omnibus text on the realization of economic, social, and cultural rights. CHR Res. 2002/24 (Apr. 22).

79 For the most recent report of the special rapporteur, see UN Doc. E/CN.4/2003/5.

80 For the report of the special rapporteur on her visit to the United States, see UN Doc. E/CN.4/2002/60/Add.1. For the U.S. response, see UN Doc. E/CN.4/2002/148.

81 CHR Res. 2002/31 (Apr. 22); ECOSOC Dec. 2002/259 (July 25).

82 United States, Explanation of Vote (July 25) (on file with author).

83 Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, Apr. 15, 1994, Marrakesh Agreement, Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1C, in World Trade Organization, The Legal Texts: The Results of the Uruguay Round of the Multilateral Trade Negotiations 321 (1999)Google Scholar. This multilateral trade agreement binds all members of the World Trade Organization.

84 CHR Res. 2002/32 (Apr. 22); see also Dennis, 57th Session, supra note 3, at 190–91. The new special rapporteur in his preliminary 2003 report stated that he intends ‘to scrutinize TRIPS and the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) through the prism of the right to health.’ UN Doc. E/CN.4/2003/58, para. 86.

85 CHR Res. 2002/24 (Apr. 22); ECOSOC Dec. 2002/254 (July 25).

86 Additional Protocol to the European Charter Providing a System of Collective Complaints, Nov. 9, 1995, available at <http://www.coe.int> (entered into force on July 1, 1998). Article 20 of the European Social Charter, Oct 18, 1961, available at id., allows states parties to select which articles (above a minimum) they consider themselves bound by. The Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Protocol of San Salvador), Nov. 17, 1988, available at <http://www.oas.org> (entered into force 1999), provides for a system of individual petitions for violations of trade union rights and the right to education. At the 2002 session of the Commission, both the European Union and the Latin American Group took the position that a working group should be established. UN Doc. E/CN.4/2002/SR.33, paras. 34, 42, respectively. The European Union stated that such a mechanism must be “provided with a clear legal framework and avoid any overlap with existing mechanisms.”

87 United States (Michael J. Dennis) and Australia, Explanations of Vote (July 25, 2002) (on file with author).

88 Report of the Independent Expert [Hatem Kotrane] on the Question of a Draft Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2002/57, para. 20 (emphasis added) [hereinafter Independent Expert 2002 Report].

89 Id., para. 34 (emphasis added).

90 The independent expert in his 2003 report continues to recommend restricting ‘the rights covered’ in any new procedure to situations revealing gross violations of economic rights. He did not clarify, however, how such a complaint mechanism would operate. See UN Doc. E/CN.4/2003/53, para. 66 [hereinafter Independent Expert 2003 Report]. It should be noted, however, that both the Torture Convention and the newly adopted optional protocol to the Women’s Discrimination Convention establish an inquiry/visits procedure for allegations of systematic or gross violations of treaty rights. Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Dec. 10, 1984, Art. 20, 1465 UNTS 85; Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, Mar. 12, 1999, Art. 9, 38 ILM 763 (1999).

91 Independent Expert 2002 Report, supra note 88, para. 32; see also Independent Expert 2003 Report, supra note 90, paras. 63–65.

92 While the Covenant was not adopted by the General Assembly until 1966, its provisions on implementation (i.e., Articles 16–24) are substantially similar to the articles initially adopted by the Commission at this session. CHR, Report of the Tenth Session, UN ESCOR, 18th Sess., Supp. No. 7, at 9–17, UN Doc. E/CN.4/705 (1954).

93 Mr. Juvigny, representative of France, Statement, id. at 9.

94 Mr. Manning, representative of the ILO, Statement, id. at 10.

95 The representative of UNESCO’s Executive Board, Mr. Arnaldo, remarked that “examination of the complaints implied a thorough knowledge of the technical conditions of implementation,” which the specialized agencies already possessed. UN Doc. E/CN.4/SR.432, at 4 (1954). See UN Doc. E/CN.4/692/Add.2 (1954) for the written views of the UNESCO Executive Board.

96 Mr. Whidam, representative of Australia, Statement, UN Doc. E/CN.4/SR.432, at 8 (1954).

97 Mr. Hoare, representative of the United Kingdom, Statement, id. at 9.

98 CHR, Report of the Tenth Session, supra note 92, paras. 215–25.

99 Independent Expert 2002 Report, supra note 88, para. 39; see also Independent Expert 2003 Report, supra note 90, paras. 71–72.

100 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Dec. 16, 1966, Arts. 16–22, 999 UNTS 3.

101 ECOSOC Res. 1985/17, 1985 UN ESCOR, Supp. No. 1, at 15, UN Doc. E/1985/85.

102 Report submitted by the then chairman of the committee, Philip Alston, UN Doc. E/C.12/1994/12, para. 18.

103 Wimer Zambrano, member of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Comment, UN Doc. E/C.12/1996/SR.48, para. 20 (1997).

104 UN Doc. E/1996/101, paras. 6, 18. The report was produced pursuant to ECOSOC Resolution 1996/38 of July 26, 1996. For the committee’s views, see UN Doc. E/C.12/1996/SR.27, paras. 24–25.

105 CHR Res. 2002/69 (Apr. 25). See UN Doc. E/CN.4/2003/26 for the report of the working group, and UN Doc. E/CN.4/2002/WG.18/6 for the fifth report of the independent expert. For a discussion of the expert’s proposed “development compact,” see Dennis, 57th Session, supra note 3, at 192–93. The vote in the General Assembly on its resolution on the right to development was 133–4-47. GARes. 57/223 (Dec. 18, 2002).

106 Final Outcome of the International Conference on Financing for Development, UN Doc. A/CONF.198/3, para. 6 (2002). The Monterrey Consensus is available online at <http://www.un.org> (visited Mar. 26, 2003).

107 Id., para. 4. President Bush’s Monterrey Conference initiative pledges additional U.S. official development assistance (totaling $5 billion annually) much the same way—i.e., to support countries committed to just governance, investment in people, and economic freedom. The president’s remarks of March 22, 2002, at the Monterrey International Conference on Financing for Development are available online at <http://www.un.org./ffd/statements/usaE.htm> (visited Mar. 26, 2003).

108 The texts are as follows: CHR Res. 2002/50 (Apr. 23) (integrating the human rights of women); CHR Res. 2002/51 (Apr.23) (traffic in women and girls); CHR Res. 2002/52 (Apr. 23) (violence against women); CHR Res. 2002/92 (Apr. 26) (rights of the child); CHR Res. 2002/53 (Apr. 23) (abduction of children from northern Uganda); CHR Res. 2002/54 (Apr. 25) (International Convention on Migrant Workers); CHR Res. 2002/55 (Apr. 25) (tolerance and pluralism); CHR Res. 2002/56 (Apr. 25) (internally displaced persons); CHR Res. 2002/57 (Apr. 25) (minorities); CHR Res. 2002/58 (Apr. 25) (violence against women migrant workers); CHR Res. 2002/59 (Apr. 25) (migrants and their families); CHR Res. 2002/60 (Apr. 25) (missing persons); CHR Res. 2002/61 (Apr. 25) (disabilities) ; CHR Res. 2002/62 (Apr. 25) (migrants); CHR Dec. 107 (Apr. 25) (rights of noncitizens); CHR Res. 2002/63 (Apr. 25) (Decade of World’s Indigenous People); CHR Res. 2002/64 (Apr. 25) (draft declaration on indigenous rights); CHR Res. 2002/65 (Apr.25) (indigenous issues); CHR Dec. 2002/108 (Apr.25) (permanent forum);CHR Res. 2002/70 (Apr. 25) (defenders).

109 The special rapporteurs relating to these topics are those on violence against women; sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography; the human rights of migrants; and the human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people. Their most recent reports are contained in UN Docs. E/CN.4/2003/75; E/CN.4/2003/79; E/CN.4/2003/85; and E/CN.4/2003/90, respectively.

110 The special representatives are on children and armed conflict, mass exoduses and displaced persons, and human rights defenders. Their most recent reports are contained in UN Docs. E/CN.4/2003/77; E/CN.4/2003/86; and E/CN.4/2003/104, respectively.

111 UN Press Release, Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (May 24, 2002), available at <http://www.unhchr.ch>. The report of the first session of the permanent forum is contained in UN Doc. E/2002/42, Supp. 43 (pts. 1, 2). ECOSOC subsequently authorized the holding of a second session in New York, May 12–23, 2003, by a vote of 44–0-9 (Andorra, France, Georgia, Germany, India, Japan, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States). Delegations abstaining on the vote generally opposed the extrabudgetary implications of the proposal and felt that the forum should be able to operate within its current budget. For the debate, see UN Press Release ECOSOC/6027, supra note 2, at 18–19.

112 CHR Res. 2002/64 (Apr. 25); ECOSOC Dec. 2002/68 (July 25).

113 The report of the working group for the December 2002 session is contained in UN Doc. E/CN.4/2003/92.

114 China had successfully blocked consideration of resolutions sponsored by the United States at the 1999–2001 sessions of the Commission. Dennis, 57th Session, supra note 3, at 195–96.

115 CHR Res. 2002/19 (Apr. 22); CHR Res. 2002/12 (Apr. 19); CHR Res. 2002/14 (Apr. 19); CHR Res. 2002/67 (Apr. 25); and CHR Res. 2002/13 (Apr. 19), respectively. For the related actions by ECOSOC renewing the mandates, see ECOSOC Decisions 2002/252, 2002/246, 2002/248, 2002/269, 2002/247, respectively, all July 25.

116 CHR Res. 2002/15 (Apr. 19); CHR Res. 2002/16 (Apr. 19), respectively. ECOSOC approved the renewal of the mandates without a vote. ECOSOC Decs. 2002/249 (Iraq) and 2002/250 (Sudan) (both July 25).

117 Osman, Mohamed, El-Bashir Criticizes Ugandan Vote Against Sudanese Human Rights Record, AP, Apr. 24, 2002 Google Scholar, available in 2002 WL Allnewsplus.

118 CHR Res. 2002/53 (Apr. 23).

119 CHR Report, supra note 1, paras. 236–41.

120 For the expert’s 2002 report, see UN Doc. E/CN.4/2002/42.

121 Munir Akram, ambassador of Pakistan, Explanation of Vote, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2002/SR.49, paras. 16–19.

122 Ali Dareini, Akbar, Iran Hails End to U.N. Rights Scrutiny a “Great Victory, ” AP, Apr. 23, 2002 Google Scholar, available in 2002 WL Allnewsplus.

123 CHR Report, supra note 1, paras. 171–79; CHR Res. 2002/11 (Apr. 19).

124 Shaxson, Nicholas, Equatorial Guinea: Oil Interests Blamed for Decision to Stop Monitoring, Fin. Times, Apr. 20, 2002, at 4 Google Scholar.

125 Joaquín Pérez-Villanuevay Tovar, ambassador of Spain, Explanation of Vote, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2002/SR.49, para. 40. Western delegations abstained on the final vote since the resolution still provided for Equatorial Guinea to receive technical assistance from the Office of the High Commissioner.

126 Ayewoh, Ikpefuan, representative of Nigeria, Explanation of Vote, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2002/SR.47, paras. 50–52; UN Press Release HR/CN/02/47, at 7–8 (Apr. 19)Google Scholar.

127 CHR Report, supra note 1, paras. 184–88. From the Asian Group, only the Republic of Korea and Japan voted against the measure. Cameroon abstained.

128 CHR Report, supra note 1, paras. 216–20.

129 UN Press Release HR/CN/02/47, supra note 126, at 8.

130 CHR Res. 2002/18 (Apr. 19).

131 CHR Report, supra note 1, paras. 221–30.

132 Garces, Raul, Uruguay Calls in Cuba’s Ambassador to Formally Break Diplomatic Ties, AP, Apr. 24, 2002 Google Scholar, available in 2002 WL Allnewsplus; see also UN Doc. E/CN.4/2002/SR.48, paras. 53–55. Within the Latin American Group, only Cuba and Venezuela voted against the text, while Brazil and Ecuador abstained. Cuba later stated in a March 2003 letter to the high commissioner for human rights that it would “not cooperate to the slightest degree” in the implementation of the resolution because “it is a cynical mockery of the truth, justice, and the consciences of all men and women genuinely committed to defending human rights.” UN Doc. E/CN.4/2003/G/37.

133 CHR Res. 2002/1 (Apr. 5).

134 UN Doc. E/CN.4/2002/SR.28, paras. 4–6 (Israel), 19–20, 71 (Canada). 26–27 (Guatemala).

135 CHR Dec. 2002/103 (Apr. 16).

136 CHR Res. 2002/90 (Apr. 26).

137 CHR Res. 2002/8 (Apr. 15) (occupied Arab territories including Palestine) (40–5 (Canada, the Czech Republic, Germany, Guatemala, the United Kingdom) -7). The other annual Middle East resolutions critical of Israel were as follows: CHR Res. 2002/3 (Apr. 12) (occupied Palestine) (52–1 (Guatemala)); CHR Res. 2002/6 (Apr. 12) (occupied Syrian Golan) (34–1 (Guatemala) -18); CHR Res. 2002/7 (Apr. 12) (Israeli settlements in the occupied Arab territories) (52–1 (Guatemala)); CHR Res. 2002/10 (Apr. 19) (Lebanese detainees in Israel) (34–2 (Guatemala, Peru)-17).

138 GA Res. 37/43, op. para. 2 (Dec. 3, 1982) (on right to self-determination and granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples).

139 Glover, Audrey, representative of the UK, Explanation of Vote, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2002/SR.39, paras. 15–16 Google Scholar; see also Olson, Elizabeth, Rights Panel of UN Votes to Condemn Israeli Acts, Int’l Herald Trib., Apr. 16, 2002, at 4 Google Scholar

140 US Reelected to UN Human Rights Commission, Agence France-Presse, Apr. 29, 2002 Google Scholar, available in LEXIS, News Library, Curnws File.

141 Lynch, Colum, U. S. to Regain Seat on U. N. Rights Panel, Wash. Post, Mar. 15, 2002, at A17 Google Scholar.

142 James, Barry, Libya to Head Rights Panel Despite U.S. Opposition, N.Y. Times, Jan. 21, 2003, at A3 Google Scholar; Libya, U.N. Leader, Wash. Post, Jan. 23, 2003, at A20 Google Scholar.

143 Statement by Mary Robinson, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, at the Opening of the 58th Session of the Commission on Human Rights at 8 (Mar. 18, 2002); Press Conference Given by Sergio Vieira, de Mello, the New High Commissioner for Human Rights at 8 (Sept. 20, 2002), both available at <http://www.unhchr.ch>>Google Scholar.

144 As of April 8, 2003, forty-seven countries had issued standing invitations to the thematic special rapporteurs of the Commission—including Iran but not the United States. CHR, Standing Invitations (Apr. 8, 2003), at <http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/2/invitations.htm>. The United States has ratified three of the six major international human rights treaties—the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention Against Torture, and the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. By comparison, Iran has ratified four of the six international human rights treaties, the two international covenants, the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Status of Ratifications of the Principal International Human Rights Treaties (Dec. 9, 2002), at <http://www.unhchr.ch/pdf/report.pdf>.