What are they? How are they relevant to my work?

The term ‘special procedures’ refers to the list of mechanisms established by the Human Rights Council to report and advise on human rights from a thematic and country-specific perspective. Special procedures cover all human rights: civil, cultural, economic, political and social as well as issues relating to specific groups. Special procedures mandate-holders are either an individual (called a Special Rapporteur (SR) or Independent Expert (IE)) or a Working Group (WG) of five members. Mandate holders serve in their personal capacities, they are not UN staff and do not receive salaries or other financial remuneration for their work. A mandate-holder’s tenure in a given function, whether it is a thematic or country mandate, is limited to a maximum of six years. Mandate holders are appointed by the Human Rights Council and their work is supported by the OHCHR.

As part of their mandates, special procedures examine, advise and publicly report on human rights issues and situations. They conduct thematic studies and convene expert consultations, contribute to the development of international human rights standards, engage in advocacy and provide advice for technical cooperation. Upon the invitation from Governments, they visit particular countries or territories in order to monitor the situation on the ground. Special procedures also act on individual cases and concerns of a broader, structural nature by sending communications to States and other entities in which they bring alleged violations or abuses to their attention. Finally, they raise public awareness of a specific topic through press releases or other public statements. Special procedures report annually to the Human Rights Council; the majority of the mandates also report annually to the General Assembly.

Cooperation by States is essential for mandate holders to fully implement their mandate, in particular in terms of conducting country visits that are taking place at the invitation of States and implementing their recommendations. A majority of countries have extended ‘standing invitations’ to thematic special procedures, which means that they are prepared to receive a visit from any mandate-holder.

In addition to their individual mandates, mandate holders also increasingly work as a system in order to better coordinate among themselves and with other human rights mechanisms and maximize the impact of their work. The Coordination Committee of Special Procedures has contributed to these efforts by facilitating coordination among special procedures, including in expressing their views collectively and publicly on issues of common concern. An annual report of special procedures is presented every year to the Human Rights Council. This report provides information on the system of special procedures as a whole and its achievements, including facts and figures. It gives a comprehensive picture of what special procedures have done individually and as a system in a given year, inter alia in terms of country visits, communications, thematic reports, follow-up activities, joint actions, development of international standards, or advocacy. The report also reflects the work of the Coordination Committee.

As of September 2016 there are 43 thematic mandates and 14 country mandates under the special procedures. The full list of mandates and related mandate holders along with additional information can be found at: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/SP/Pages/Welcomepage.aspx.

UN Special Procedures Thematic Mandates, September 2016

People of African descent (WG) Albinism (IE)
Arbitrary detention (WG) Transnational corporations and other business enterprises (WG)
Cultural rights (SR) Persons with disabilities (SR)
Enforced or involuntary disappearances  (WG) Right to education (SR)
Enjoyment of a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment (SR) Extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (SR)
Right to food (SR) Effects of foreign debt on human rights (IE)
Freedom of opinion and expression (SR) Freedom of peaceful assembly and of association (SR)
Hazardous substances and wastes (SR) Right to health (SR)
Adequate housing (SR) Human rights defenders (SR)
Independence of judges and lawyers (SR) Indigenous peoples (SR)
Internally displaced persons (SR) International order (IE)
International solidarity (IE) Mercenaries (WG)
Migrants (SR) Minority issues (SR)
Older persons (IE) Poverty and human rights (SR)
Privacy (SR) Racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance (SR)
Freedom of religion or belief (SR) Sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography (SR)
Discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity (IE) Contemporary forms of slavery (SR)
Respect for human rights in countering terrorism (SR) Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (SR)
Trafficking in persons (SR) Promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence (SR)
Unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights (SR) Violence against women (SR)
Right to water and sanitation (SR) Discrimination against women in law and practice (WG)
Protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity (IE)

UN Special Procedures, Country Mandates, September 2016

Belarus (SR) Cambodia (SR)
Central African Republic (IE) Côte d’Ivoire (IE)
Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (SR) Eritrea (SR)
Haiti (IE) Islamic Republic of Iran (SR)
Mali (IE) Myanmar (SR)
Palestinian territories (SR) Somalia (IE)
Sudan (IE) Syrian Arab Republic (SR)

This mandate will start once the mandate of the commission of inquiry ends

How is the work of Special Procedures relevant to UN Country Teams?

The system of special procedures covers all human rights: civil, cultural, economic, political and social. They aim at promoting and protecting human rights worldwide, including by making specific recommendations to improve the situation of human rights in a particular country or territory or to address certain types of human rights issues. Virtually all phases of a special procedures mandate can be valuable for the work of UNCTs, in particular:

  1. Knowing the work of special procedures, in particular their thematic report and recommendations and raising awareness about their work
  2. Participating and supporting actively the preparation, conduct and follow-up to visits of special procedure
  3. Communicating with special procedures in relation to specific human rights situations

Thematic work, in particular reports: what are the benefits of reading them?

Special procedures typically present an annual thematic reports to the Human Rights Council (including research, studies, guidelines etc). Many of the thematic special procedures also present annual thematic reports to the General Assembly. Through these thematic reports special procedures mandate holders identify root causes, patterns and complexities relating to particular human rights violations, highlight good practices around the world, and issue recommendations. These recommendations outline measures to be adopted to overcome particular obstacles and to strengthen political, institutional, legal, judicial and administrative frameworks to ensure the promotion and protection of a particular right. The findings and recommendations of special procedures’ reports represent important resources and reference materials for UN planning and programming. They provide legal, policy and operational guidance on human rights issues for development and humanitarian actors and provide clarification on the applicable legal framework. They provide concrete analytical tools to inform UN country analysis and programming processes on the ground, as well as contributing to advocacy efforts and as such are a valuable tool for UNCTs.

Reports and studies that are prepared by special procedures are typically public and available for review (they are available on the respective web-pages of thematic Special Procedures: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/SP/Pages/Themes.aspx).

Case Study: Independent Expert on Minority Issues informs UNDP programming

In 2006 UNDP convened, together with the Independent Expert on Minority Issues and OHCHR, a consultation on UNDP’s engagement with minorities in development processes to take stock of key issues, challenges, and gaps with regard to UNDP’s engagement with minorities in relevant practice areas and identified entry points that would help UNDP to better address these issues. In 2008 the partnership continued with the objective of developing a UNDP Guidance and Policy note on minority issues. The result – the Marginalised Minorities in Development Programming: A UNDP Resource Guide and Toolkit – was published in May 2010 and provides an overview of the international and regional legal standards and mechanisms relevant for minority rights including practical tools and guidance that will enable UNDP staff, and UN staff more generally, to understand the key conceptual issues and fundamental principles for the promotion and protection of minority rights, and how to better utilize them in their work.

Case Study: Development of the Guiding Principles on Internal displacement

The Representative of the Secretary General on the Human Rights of Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) led the process of developing the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement in cooperation with the key humanitarian actors including UNHCR, OHCHR and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in 1999, which consolidated the legal framework related to displacement drawn from international humanitarian and human rights law and international refugee law, and addressed gaps in the law. The Guiding Principles inform the work of international humanitarian agencies both during an emergency and during early recovery and reconstruction and provide a tool to ensure protection of IDPs. The mandate of the Special Rapporteur has been instrumental in consolidating international recognition of the Guiding Principles, and their operationalization within the humanitarian community and has also actively promoted and guided the incorporation of these principles into domestic law and policy in several countries around the world.

How is this information useful to UNCTs?

  • Special Procedures’ thematic work, in particular their reports, give useful guidance and insight into the elements that contribute to violations of a particular human right, or that may contribute to its promotion and protection.
  • Thematic recommendations can be used to either validate programming or identify areas where increased measures need to be taken.
  • The advocacy role of Special Procedures is an important way in which attention is drawn to emerging thematic concerns or priority situations.
  • Utilizing the work of the Special Procedures would contribute to a more coherent and consolidated approach to human rights concerns throughout UN entities.

Kenya Case Study: Close collaboration yields results

The Special Rapporteur on the human rights of internally displaced persons (IDPs) undertook an official country visit to Kenya in October 2011. The visit is an example of close collaboration between special procedures and the UN Country Team, the Resident Coordinator’s office and individual agencies such as UNHCR, OHCHR, OCHA and UNICEF – towards effective human rights advocacy and coordinated UN programming that considers and includes the human rights of IDPs.

The strategic approach to this visit was to involve as many of the key actors as possible in the field visits, relevant meetings, key messages and proposed strategies moving forward. The Special Rapporteur collaborated very closely with the RC’s office, UNHCR, OCHA, and OHCHR in both the preparation and conduct of the visit. Engagement with the RC’s office, allowed the RC and the Special Rapporteur to exchange views on approaches to mitigate or avoid post-election violence and displacement, to address the situation of IDPs, and join their efforts in order to address durable solutions, including by jointly calling a donor meeting. The Special Rapporteur also had the opportunity to be fully briefed by the RC and the agencies mentioned above, and to provide a briefing on the findings of his visit to the UNCT as a whole. This helped to assist the UNCT in both informing and sensitizing the entire UNCT on human rights mainstreaming, standards relating to IDPs, and the important connection between development, human rights and displacement.

UN partners also accompanied the Special Rapporteur to relevant Government meetings, and were able to engage with the Government on relevant issues both during and after the meeting. This close engagement with UN counterparts allowed for in depth discussion of issues, strategies and to more effectively follow up on these issues and the Special Rapporteur’s recommendations once the visit ended including engagement with the Government.

This strategic and unified approach allowed agencies working on displacement in the country to maximize their impact and advocacy messages, while the visit of the Special Rapporteur provided additional impetus and momentum to the efforts already being undertaken on the ground. Exchange of views also took place when formulating recommendations to the country visit report.

Follow-up activities have continued including through advice provided by the Special Rapporteur to develop a draft law on IDPs and the development of an implementation and prioritization strategy which is a process led by the Kenyan National Human Rights Commission, in cooperation with the IDP protection cluster (which includes government and UN counterparts).


Tajikistan Case study: Catalytic efforts on Violence against Women following a Special Procedure visit

The visit of the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women (VAW) to Tajikistan in 2008 was closely supported by the UN Country Team and members of the expanded Gender Theme Group (GTG) including the UN and international agencies. The UNCT was instrumental in sharing all relevant reports, studies and data from the on-going projects on VAW with the Special Rapporteur and also facilitating consultations between the Special Rapporteur and various senior government ministers, the Chairperson of the Supreme Court and Chairpersons of both the Committee on State Statistics and the Committee for Women and Family Affairs, and members of Parliament. A special meeting with the representatives of civil society organizations, including women’s groups, the Council of Ulema and imams was organized to discuss the issues around VAW in Tajikistan in depth. UNCT/GTG members had also facilitated meetings with survivors of violence at crisis centers, women in shelters for victims of trafficking and women in rural districts.

The subsequent report from the Special Rapporteur highlighted various issues including that VAW in Tajikistan is not sufficiently acknowledged as a problem warranting public attention and therefore goes largely unreported and unrecorded. Women’s economic dependency, legal illiteracy and practices pertaining to marriages, residency and housing have aggravated their vulnerability to violence. The report highlighted that women and girls are also victims to sexual violence and exploitation on the streets and to trafficking inside and outside Tajikistan. Women’s lack of awareness of their rights, and issues pertaining to residency registration and the rise of early, polygamous and unregistered marriages were found to further aggravate their vulnerability. While some encouraging steps have been taken, responses by State bodies to protect and support victims of violence and prosecute perpetrators had been noted as insufficient.

The report was widely discussed at the highest level and was widely covered by the media. The UNCT/GTG organized a national round-table meeting to discuss the findings and recommendations and adopt a Resolution for practical implementation of the measures directed at elimination of VAW.

The key points of the Resolution included: 1) development and adoption at the national level of a law on combating all forms of violence against women and girls, 2) improving a national legislative framework and undertaking its review to provide sufficient arguments for a need for a specific law and also to make recommendations for changes within existing legislation to make it in compliance with the law.

Since that date, the UNCT took a leading role in supporting the Government in the development of the Law on Domestic Violence. During a four year period the UNCT facilitated the development process, conducted public hearings and provided extensive comments on various drafts. These efforts have resulted in ensuring an open and transparent consultative process between the Government, civil society and international community. The Law was endorsed by the parliament in the end of 2012 and approved by the President in March 2013.

The State Committee on women and family affairs has been tasked to monitor the implementation of the law. The UNCT and GTG are taking an active role in providing technical and financial support to the Committee in ensuring that the Law is understood by the public and local authorities and especially that law-enforcement bodies are trained and informed on the procedures related VAW and handling of such cases.

Vietnam Case Study: Special Procedures as a starting point

In Vietnam, UN support to the UPR and the Special Procedures has been an inter-agency effort, highlighting the complementary mandates of UN agencies, funds and programmes and the added value of the UN working together. The UPR process led to a deepening of the UN’s engagement on human rights. As part of the follow-up an invitation was extended to six Special Procedure Mandate Holders to visit Vietnam. From the visits carried out, the recommendations presented an opportunity for the UN to enhance its work on human rights in the country.

Visits of Special Procedures to Viet Nam were considered by the UNCT to be an important step in the dialogue on human rights albeit at times sensitive and political. A focus on capacity building activities before the first mission of the Special Rapporteur with technical assistance from OHCHR in Geneva to explain the procedure and help manage the expectations was considered essential in the country context.


Uganda Case Study: Getting Marginalized Issues on the National Agenda and the Role of Special Rapporteurs

 The Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the highest attainable standard of health carried out a series of country missions to Uganda to get important – but marginalized – health-related issues onto the national agenda. These issues included the need to strengthen national accountability mechanisms and the right of access to preventive measures and treatment for those people affected by neglected tropical diseases. These missions were intended to sensitize both the public and the government on the right to health so that the government can fulfill its obligations and rights-holders claim their entitlements.

Visits in both 2005 and 2007 led to increased public awareness, advocacy and national ownership around the issue of the right to health. The Special Rapporteur’s recommendations were incorporated into capacity building efforts by the Ugandan Ministry of Health with support from WHO and OHCHR. This aimed to exemplify the link between health and human rights and explore how human rights can be used as a tool for the analysis, implementation and monitoring of national health plans and brought together and encouraged closer partnership between a large number of important national actors in the area of health and human rights.

Moldova Case Study: Positive impact of Special Procedures on national dialogue

 The UN Country Team in Moldova has strengthened its human rights advocacy work through systematic and regular engagement with the human rights mechanisms, including Treaty Bodies, Special Procedures and the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) process. The UNCT supported the mission by the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, the core conclusions of which included that Moldova needed to strengthen celebration of diversity domestically, as well as act to transpose equality norms into the domestic legal order.

Good cooperation between the Special Rapporteur and the UNCT, in preparing and conducting the visit was mutually beneficial in that it allowed the Special Rapporteur to have direct insight into the situation on the ground and to identify the best timing for the visit, linking it to processes such as the UPR and national developments, thus facilitating implementation and follow-up of the recommendations. Specifically, the visit occurred in the context of relevant human rights concerns having been raised by the UNCT, the Republic of Moldova reviewing its legislation regarding religious denominations and considering adopting a new law on anti-discrimination. Moreover, the Republic of Moldova was scheduled for the Universal Periodic Review in October 2011. It was therefore thought that a visit of the Special Rapporteur at that time would positively impact on these processes and related national debates. During the visit, the Special Rapporteur participated in discussions specifically dedicated to the review of the law on religious denominations which contributed to a lively national debate on crucial questions related to the place of religion in society and the issue of anti-discrimination. The visit also raised awareness about international standards in this regard. The Special Rapporteur provided expert opinion on these sensitive issues, facilitating the UNCTs intervention. UN Moldova has supported the adoption of a comprehensive anti-discrimination law, to transpose Moldova’s international law obligations into the domestic legal order. In this regard, the UN has offered ongoing comment on draft texts of the law and has made regular and public interventions to assist the public in understanding the need for such a law.

Country visits: what are the benefits of participating actively?

Through their announcements, presence, reports and press releases, Special procedures’ country visits raise awareness, both domestically and internationally, about particular human rights issues and can play a critical role to substantiate and consolidate advocacy efforts by the UNCT. Because mandate holders are independent and are not affiliated with any particular UN agencies they are in a position to convey messages on human rights issues from an independent and highly legitimated voice and their visits can help draw the attention of the media, civil society and the public to human rights issues.

The preparation and carrying out of the country visit will receive support from a wide range of institutions, though primarily from the OHCHR, which provides administrative and other services. Both OHCHR and the UNCT have important roles to play in planning and executing visits, including coordinating with government ministries, organizing and scheduling meetings (with NGOs, CSOs, academia), press conferences, and logistics (travel, communications, interpretation). Briefings from the UNCTs are also useful to help inform special procedures mandate-holders about the specific context of the visit. With the mandate holders’ consent, members of the UNCT will often accompany the mandate holder during their country visits.

UNCTs will also provide valuable information and reports in preparation of the visit. This information will be treated as confidential. It gives special procedure mandate holders important additional country context for data and information received from other channels. Insights contribute to the identification of the main issues to address during the upcoming mission and assist in identifying persons, sites and material which the mandate holder should visit and consult before and during the mission. It also helps ensure recommendations are targeted and practical.

Special procedures usually issue a press statement at the end of the visit in which they share their preliminary assessment. After their country visits, special procedures produce reports that are presented as an addendum to their annual report to the Human Rights Council. Country visit reports provide detailed information on the country’s human rights situation, including specific challenges and areas of concern. Special procedures may also conduct follow-up visits to countries. Follow-up visits will normally look at whether recommendations of the prior report have been implemented, and what are the obstacles in this regard. In addition to follow-up country visits or follow-up reports, some mandate holders send questionnaires to the country concerned or organize workshops or seminars to assess how their recommendations have been implemented. Such follow-up activities are also reported to the Council.

Typically, the special procedures recommendations will require follow-up in order to be implemented. While the Government should lead the implementation of the recommendations the UNCT has an important role in advocating with the Government to engage with special procedures and follow-up to their recommendations and may provide capacity development assistance. Moreover, the advice and the findings and recommendations of the special procedures provide useful analytical tools to build on and inform UN programming including the Common Country Analysis and the development of the UN Development Assistance Framework (CCA / UNDAF) and have at times also led to joint UN programming on specific human rights issues.

How is this information useful to UN Country Teams?

Getting involved in the preparation and follow-up of special procedures’ country visits is a good starting point for:

  • Communicating with the Government ministry/ies in charge of preparation of the visit
  • Providing information to the special procedures mandate holder about thematic areas which require the most focus in a particular country as well as the national and regional context in which the visit will take place
  • Raising awareness of and creating dialogue on human rights and development issues at the local and national level, both within and between a large range of domestic stakeholders
  • Creating opportunities to support the work of civil society and to have and support multi-stakeholder dialogues with groups that are typically under-represented (women, elderly, youth, persons with disabilities, minorities, etc.), and ensuring that meetings are inclusive and representative of these voices
  • Exploring the possibility of engaging with the special procedures mandate holders, who are internationally recognized experts in their field, by arranging a round table discussion or similar learning activity
  • Using the momentum created by the visit to keep human rights issues, including the obligations of the Government, on the agenda with various stakeholders at the national level
  • Utilizing the country reports to assist in programming and / or the formulation of UNDAFs and informing the setting of priorities and new focus areas. UNCTs can encourage wide circulation of the special procedures findings and use the recommendations as a platform for long-term advocacy and dialogue with the government and other local stakeholders including civil society and the media
  • UNCTs can engage in a discussion with the government to implement Special Procedures recommendations and identifying areas for providing capacity development assistance and technical advice

UNCT Checklist for Engaging with Special Procedures

A print version of the checklist is available here.

General Checklist
Read all reports of special procedures reports relating to the country, as well as those in relation to thematic issues of relevance to your country
Read all the communications sent by special procedures to the country and the responses received by the Government, if any
Know whether there is a special procedure with the mandate to monitor the situation on the country (country mandate)
Know about existing thematic mandates or cross-cutting themes on a subject of interest for your programming
Know whether the government has issued a standing invitation to special procedures
Know which government ministries and individuals are responsible for issues related to cooperation with special procedures, including responses to special procedures’ communications, responses to requests for visits by special procedures, the issuance of standing invitations and follow-up to special procedures recommendations
Know whether any special procedure mandate holders is planning to undertake a visit to the country
Know whether any opportunities exist to invite special procedures to in-country events, seminars or discussions (not official missions)
Provide information to local and national stakeholders on how to engage with Special Procedures mandate holders
Keep track of situations or cases that may deserve attention from special procedures mandate holders
Know who in the local OHCHR office or UNCT will coordinate special procedure visits and ensure representation from civil society and other relevant stakeholders
Know which individuals, from the country, if any, are special procedure mandate holders and could hence be helpful in training and / or awareness-building
Mission Preparation Checklist
Know how to give feedback to special procedures on the preparation of a visit and on main issues to be addressed and request the Terms of Reference for the visit
Know which individuals will be involved in a mission to the country:
– From the OHCHR (both headquarters and country/regional presence)
– From the UN agencies, funds and programmes in the country
– From local and national government (which ministries) and the NHRI
– From any relevant NGOs and grassroots organizations
– From the press and other media
Know what the proposed mission meeting schedule is, including traveling times
Mission Engagement Checklist
Participate in the UNCT briefing of the special procedures mandate holders
Know the meeting schedule and in-country contact information for the mandate holder and team
Follow-Up Checklist
Request a draft report from special procedures for the UNCT’s comments prior to publication and utilize the final report to analyse what role the UNCT can play in addressing issues identified
Follow the presentation of the report to the Human Rights Council and the response from the government
Identify the different channels available for disseminating the results and recommendations of the Special Procedures visit, contribute to their follow-up and engage with various national stakeholders in this context, including the government
Keep in contact with the Special Procedures mandate holder through OHCHR after the visit and work to support appropriate follow-up to the recommendations

Case Study: Examples of UNCT’s playing a critical role in supporting governments to engage with and follow up on the recommendations of human rights mechanisms
– Azerbaijan, Uruguay, Tanzania

In Azerbaijan, advocacy efforts by the UNCT played an instrumental role in the ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Following the ratification of the Convention, the UNCT developed joint programmes to support major legal and policy changes in the country, in order to enable people with disabilities to better exercise their rights.In Uruguay, following a visit of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the urgent need for penal reform was brought to national attention and the Government identified penal reform as a priority. The UN system, led by the RC initiated a common strategy and joint programme for supporting the Government address the issue and follow-up on the recommendations in the Special Rapporteur’s report. In Tanzania, the UNCT played an important role in supporting the Government and civil society to engage with the UPR process. It also utilized the process to raise the profile of human rights issues on the public agenda. Following the inter-governmental dialogue in Geneva, the UNCT developed a UPR follow-up assistance strategy to ensure that the recommendations inform national development policies and programmes, as well as the UNDAF (2011-2015).

Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/chr/special/index.htm

Annual report of Special Procedures http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/SP/Pages/Annualreports.aspx

Annual reports to the Human Rights Council http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/SP/Pages/AnnualreportsHRC.aspx

Reports to the General Assembly http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/SP/Pages/GAReports.aspx

Current Country Mandates of Special Procedures http://spinternet.ohchr.org/_Layouts/SpecialProceduresInternet/ViewAllCountryMandates.aspx

Current Thematic Mandates of Special Procedures http://spinternet.ohchr.org/_Layouts/SpecialProceduresInternet/ViewAllCountryMandates.aspx?Type=TM

General page on Special Procedures country visits http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/SP/Pages/CountryandothervisitsSP.aspx

Visits since 1998 http://spinternet.ohchr.org/_Layouts/SpecialProceduresInternet/ViewCountryVisits.aspx?Lang=en

Follow-up activities of Special Procedures http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/SP/Pages/FollowUp.aspx

Forthcoming country visits of Special Procedures http://spinternet.ohchr.org/_Layouts/SpecialProceduresInternet/Forthcomingcountryvisits.aspx

Countries having extended a Standing Invitation to Special Procedures http://spinternet.ohchr.org/_Layouts/SpecialProceduresInternet/StandingInvitations.aspx

How to contact Special Procedures http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/chr/special/contact.htm

The Coordination Committee of Special Procedures  http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/SP/CoordinationCommittee/Pages/CCSpecialProceduresIndex.aspx

Related Blogs and Country stories

Silo Fighters Blog

An excellent tool for mainstreaming human rights

BY Jessica Braver, Valeria Guerra, Maria Jeannette Moya | July 28, 2015

The process of reviewing a country’s human rights records can become an opportunity to bond human rights with development. In Argentina, the Universal Periodic Review process has promoted human rights as the daily work of everyone in the UN system. This spirit exemplifies the ‘Human Rights up Front’ initiative. Human rights are at the core of the United Nations mandate. In the UN Charter (1945) and in UN resolutions, we have reaffirmed our faith in fundamental human rights. As UN staff members, we need to bear this in mind in our daily work, regardless of our area of expertise. Improving UN action to safeguard human rights Human Rights up Front seeks to ensure that the UN system takes early and effective action to prevent or respond to large-scale violations of human rights or international humanitarian law. The initiative, launched in 2013 by the UN Secretary-General, calls for a major cultural shift within the UN, placing the protection of human rights and of people at the heart of UN strategies and operational activities. A leading role in human rights mainstreaming Human Rights up Front highlights the role of the UN Resident Coordinator (RC) system in mainstreaming human rights, encouraging us to work together in a more cohesive and coherent way. In Argentina, the Resident Coordinator’s office has been working on positioning the topic in the UN agenda, as well as on building an inter-agency culture for the Universal Periodic Review, so as to install human rights mainstreaming as a priority. What is the Universal Periodic Review? The Universal Periodic Review examines the human rights situation of all 193 UN Member States (A/RES/60/251) under the umbrella of the Human Rights Council. The State under review submits a report declaring what actions it has taken to improve human rights situations in the country. Information is also provided by relevant stakeholders, and by UN international experts and agencies working in the country, who highlight concerns and propose action. Each State is assessed by fellow State representatives, under the principles of cooperation and equal treatment. State delegates then make recommendations for action. The expertise and on-the-ground knowledge of UN agencies, funds and programmes working in each country are invaluable assets for the UPR. And we, as UN officials, must make the most of this opportunity to help improve the human rights situations of our host countries. How we did it in Argentina We welcomed support from the OHCHR The RC’s office has been supported by the Regional Office for South America of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). Argentina participated in the OHCHR UPR Project covering five South American countries, which provided an overall framework for UPR-related matters, information sessions and technical assistance on how to draft our UPR report. OHCHR insisted that the effective engagement of the whole UN system was crucial to a successful UPR process. In the end, Argentina received 119 recommendations in its second UPR (2012), some of which embodied inputs from the UN system, which meant that local agencies, funds and programmes could see their added value reflected in the outcome report. We established the Inter-Agency Group on Human Rights Based on conversations held by the RCO, OHCHR-South America and the Government, the Inter-Agency Group on Human Rights (IAGHR) was set up in 2012. It supports the monitoring of recommendations made to Argentina, having its own duties, coordination mechanisms and work plan. It also puts a special emphasis on including a human rights-based approach in the preparation of the new 2016-2020 Cooperation Framework for Argentina. Five agencies helped hire a human rights advisor At the suggestion of OHCHR, a human rights advisor for the RC’s office was hired to specifically address human rights mainstreaming and to monitor the implementation of UPR recommendations. The position was funded by OHCHR, UNICEF, UNDP, UNODC and UNHCR. The human rights advisor was also part of the five-country OHCHR UPR Project. We created a matrix linking human rights and development The OHCHR UPR Project prepared a matrix systematizing all recommendations made to its countries of coverage. The UN system in Argentina produced its own matrix linking the UPR recommendations with development projects by the different UN entities. By connecting UN initiatives with the UPR recommendations, which were accepted by the country, the UN system found a new and strong source of legitimacy. Further, the State committed to implement the UPR recommendations in four and a half years. We took action with the government and other stakeholders The UN System in Argentina provided support to the government in following-up and implementing UPR recommendations. Also, workshops were held to disseminate the UPR mechanism and its recommendations among UN System, Senate, Judiciary, civil society and ombudsperson’s office. These workshops encouraged the submissions of UPR midterm reports. How can you use the UPR process to enhance human rights? There can be no peace without development, no development without peace, and there is neither without human rights. On one hand, the Universal Periodic Review process presents a unique opportunity to engage Member States in the protection of human rights, and encourages cooperation between States and the exchange of international experiences to strengthen policies and institutions. On the other hand, UPR is a key instrument for the UN System to provide a framework for coherence and joint action among UN System and also opens a window for cooperation with the governments and other stakeholders in the process of follow-up and implementation of UPR recommendations. If you have a story to share about the UPR, please post a comment and links for more information.

Country Stories

Viet Nam Engaging with International Human Rights Mechanisms to Achieve Universal Access to Education

March 8, 2014

The most important reason for us to support mother tongue-based bilingual education is to promote social equality in education by creating equal opportunities for ethnic minority children to have access to quality education. - Mr. ViVan Dieu, Director, Research Centre for Ethnic Minority Education, Viet Nam Institute of Educational Sciences. Abstract As a direct result of Viet Nam undergoing the Universal Periodic Review in May 2009, the government invited six Special Procedures mandate holders of the United Nations Human Rights Council to visit Viet Nam. Four Special Procedures visited Viet Nam during 2010-2011, one of whom was the United Nations Independent Expert on minority issues in July 2010. During her visit, the Independent Expert on minority issues engaged closely with the United Nations country team, which contributed to ensuring that her recommendations reflected the realities, priorities and challenges in the country. The recommendations from the Independent Expert proved a valuable tool for guiding and strengthening efforts to move forward on ensuring equitable and inclusive growth in Viet Nam. In particular, her engagement with UNICEF on the issue of bilingual education for children of ethnic minorities resulted in an explicit reference to UNICEF’s work in this area and a recommendation that this approach be supported and expanded in the country. These recommendations added significant weight and credibility to UNICEF’s work on bilingual education, providing UNICEF with an advocacy tool to raise attention and commitment to this approach. Bilingual education has since been recognized by the Ministry of Education as one of the solutions to reducing disparities in access to education. Background The Socialist Republic of Viet Nam is a one-party state ruled by the Communist Party of Viet Nam. It has an estimated population of 87.8 million people, of which 14.3 percent belong to one of 53 minority ethnic groups.1 Many of these ethnic groups have their own distinct language, religion and cultural identity and live in remote parts of the country. The rest of the population belongs to the majority ethnic group, known as the Kinh. Over the past two decades, Viet Nam has achieved rapid economic growth and has significantly reduced overall poverty rates from 58.1 percent in 1993 to 14.5 percent in 2008.2 As a result of this growth, Viet Nam attained the status of a middle income country in 2010.3 One of the biggest development challenges that Viet Nam faces in the process of transitioning to a middle income country is the widening gap between rich and poor and between different regions. The ‘feminization of poverty’4 is also a growing challenge. Local customs, patriarchal attitudes and traditions have led to gender inequality in the labour market and in political and public life. Furthermore, ethnic minorities continue to be particularly vulnerable to high levels of poverty and inequality. While in 1990, only 18 percent of those living in poverty belonged to ethnic minorities, by 2008 ethnic minorities accounted for almost 56 percent of the poor.5 In 2012, the Committee on the Rights of the Child noted its concern over the lower level of development indicators among ethnic minorities, especially regarding access to health and education.6 Viet Nam faces significant human rights challenges in the area of civil and political rights, including freedom of expression, association and assembly. Space for expressing views on government policies and practices is also limited.7 Education for ethnic minorities The official language used in schools in Viet Nam is Vietnamese. While the law recognizes that ethnic minorities have the right to use their mother tongue in schools in order to preserve and develop their ethnic and cultural identity, the lack of teaching capacity in minority languages has meant that in practice children are taught in Vietnamese only. As many minority communities have only a limited understanding and proficiency in Vietnamese, this has created a language barrier for many of these children. Lack of access to education in their mother tongue, together with the use of Vietnamese, is considered one of the reasons why the net primary school completion rate among ethnic minority children (61 percent) is significantly lower than the rate for Kinh (86 percent). For minority women the problem of illiteracy is particularly acute; literacy rates for ethnic minority women are just 22 percent, as compared to 92 percent for ethnic Kinh women.8 Strategy Engaging with international human rights processes and mechanisms Since 2008, UNDP has been implementing a capacity-building project on human rights treaty reporting with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The project has provided an opportunity for the United Nations country team in Viet Nam to engage with and support the government in its interaction with international human rights mechanisms. Supporting engagement with the Universal Periodic Review, human rights treaty body reporting, sharing knowledge on processes and procedures, and supporting the government in organizing visits of Special Procedures mandate holders of the Human Rights Council proved a useful way to concretize human rights concepts and provide expertise to the government. In May 2009, Viet Nam was assessed under the Universal Periodic Review. This afforded the government an important chance to present an overview of the main opportunities and challenges they faced in meeting their international obligations, as well as to demonstrate progress made toward achieving key commitments under human rights treaties. It also provided an opportunity for the United Nations to support the government to engage effectively with this process. At the government’s request, UNDP, in close coordination with the United Nations country team and with OHCHR Geneva support, facilitated training for government officials on the Universal Periodic Review. As part of this training, UNDP invited other countries from the region (Indonesia and Philippines) that had already undergone the process to share their experiences with Viet Nam. These activities helped build the government’s capacity and openness to engaging with international human rights mechanisms and, in doing so, strengthening the quality of Viet Nam’s engagement in the Universal Periodic Review. Viet Nam ensured representation at the highest level, which reflected the importance given to the Universal Periodic Review by the government. The Universal Periodic Review experience, in turn, generated greater momentum to engage with other human rights mechanisms of the United Nations. One of the follow-up measures to the Universal Periodic Review process was the government’s invitation to six Special Procedures mandate holders of the Human Rights Council to visit Viet Nam. BOX United Nations Special Procedures: The Special Procedures of the United Nations Human Rights Council are independent human rights experts with mandates to report and advise on human rights from a thematic or country-specific perspective. Special Procedures are either an individual (called Special Rapporteur or Independent Expert) or a working group, usually composed of five members. Mandate Holders serve in their personal capacities and do not receive salaries or other financial compensation for their work. They rely on government invitations and cooperation to carry out their work. Mandate holders are appointed by the Human Rights Council and their work is supported by Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). END BOX Viet Nam received four visits of United Nations Special Procedures mandate holders between 2010 and 2011: the Independent Expert on minority issues (July 2010); the Independent Expert on extreme poverty and human rights (August 2010); the Independent Expert on the effects of foreign debt (March 2011); and the Special Rapporteur on the right to health (November – December 2011). These visits provided significant occasions for Viet Nam to benefit from the expertise of Special Procedures in its efforts to follow up on the recommendations of the Universal Periodic Review, and to address key human rights issues in the country. The United Nations country team took a number of steps to maximize the value and impact of these visits and to optimize the benefits of the government’s engagement with the Special Procedures. As a first step, and in collaboration with OHCHR Geneva, the United Nations country team organized workshops for the government to provide guidance on the overall procedures of such visits and the mandates of the Special Procedures. During the visits, the United Nations country team and technical experts from the agencies played an important role by providing the Special Procedures with technical expertise on issues falling within their mandates. This was particularly important in Viet Nam where civil society is developing its capacity to engage in these processes. In turn, being able to draw on this expertise ensured that the Special Procedures report and recommendations reflected the realities, opportunities and challenges in the country. United Nations country team engagement with the Independent Expert on minority issues In July 2010, the Independent Expert on minority issues, Gay McDougal, visited Viet Nam. The United Nations country team viewed the visit of the Independent Expert as an opportunity to strengthen and further reinforce government efforts to address widening inequalities and persistent poverty among minority ethnic groups. Supporting the government to achieve inclusive and equitable growth is a core part of the United Nations country team’s development agenda. At the beginning of the visit, the United Nations country team organized a formal briefing with the Independent Expert to discuss key issues, challenges and opportunities. This was followed by in-depth briefings with technical experts from several United Nations agencies. The United Nation’s inter-agency approach proved extremely valuable in this process. Having all United Nations agencies around the same table provided the Independent Expert with a breadth of expertise and knowledge on a wide range of issues affecting her mandate – ethnic minority poverty, cultural diversity, sexual reproductive health for minorities and bi-lingual education. United Nations agencies’ expertise in the relevant areas enabled the Independent Expert to support the agencies’ work. It allowed the Independent Expert to draw on agency expertise to make concrete and useful recommendations that could assist the government to move forward. According to the Independent Expert, her visit was, “a great opportunity to re-introduce Viet Nam to the international human rights mechanisms. It allowed Viet Nam to share its accomplishments and the obstacles it has had to surmount with the Human Rights Council and human rights mechanisms. The government took my mission very seriously. They learned a lot from the mission on what they can expect in engaging with human rights mechanisms.” Engaging the United Nations Independent Expert on minority issues in support of bilingual education for ethnic minorities Internationally there has been consistent recognition of the value of bilingual education in improving learning and reducing drop-out rates.9 To examine ways by which this concept can best work in Viet Nam, the Ministry of Education and Training worked together with UNICEF to pilot a project on bilingual education in three provinces (see Box 1). In addition, to generate support among government counterparts for this approach and to ensure the government would benefit from the expertise of international human rights mechanisms, UNICEF, in collaboration with the United Nations country team, strategically engaged with the Independent Expert on minority issues during her visit in July 2010. UNICEF provided the Independent Expert with in-depth briefing notes on the legal framework for ethnic minority languages in education and their rights to use their mother tongue in school. UNICEF also held face to face meetings with the Independent Expert and organized her participation in a mother-tongue teacher training workshop. This participation enabled her to interact directly with teachers being trained. BOX Box 1: UNICEF’s Action Research on mother tongue-based bilingual education in Viet Nam UNICEF has been supporting the Ministry of Education and Training to implement and monitor a pilot project on bilingual education since 2008. The pilot project is being carried out in three provinces – Lao Cai, Gia Lai and Tra Vinh – in the minority languages of H’mong, Jrai and Khmer, respectively. Students in each province will complete the pilot programme by 2015. Through the project, teachers are trained in bilingual education techniques and provided special teaching and learning materials developed in consultation with local communities. The project is being carefully monitored for evidence of improvements in the quality of education. The ultimate objective is to feed the research results into a national education strategy that supports bilingual education.10 END BOX Results In the Independent Expert on minority issues’ report to the United Nations Human Rights Council, the issue of bilingual education for ethnic minorities featured prominently among the key recommendations. The Independent Expert explicitly referred to the example of UNICEF’s work in bilingual education and recommended that this approach be supported and expanded to other districts. According to the Independent Expert’s report, “the importance of improving the education outcomes of minorities cannot be overstated. Access to quality and appropriate education is a fundamental gateway to development and poverty eradication for minorities in Viet Nam..." The independent expert saw clear evidence that bilingual education ultimately serves to increase the potential of ethnic minority children and communities to learn and use Vietnamese…The government should permit and support bilingual education for ethnic minority children.”11 Her recommendations to Viet Nam were fully in line with the United Nations country team’s overall policy recommendations on minority issues outlined in the United Nations’ One Plan. This is an achievement realized through the engagement and cooperation of the United Nations country team with the Independent Expert during the course of her visit. Most importantly, the visit of the Independent Expert provided a powerful advocacy opportunity for the United Nations’ efforts to promote bilingual education. By validating the methodology that UNICEF and the Ministry of Education were piloting and encouraging its institutionalization, the recommendations provided authoritative inputs for UNICEF to draw upon in advocating for this approach.12 The recognition and support of the Independent Expert added weight and credibility to the methodology, providing a significant recommendation for its acceptance in the country. The Ministry of Education has now formally recognized that bilingual education is one of the solutions to strengthen ethnic minority children’s education.13 Moreover, early results from the UNICEF Action Research on mother tongue-based bilingual education are promising. As a whole, children enrolled in the programme are performing better than minority children not enrolled in the programme in language competency tests in both their mother tongue and Vietnamese. They also outperform ethnic minority students not in the programme in listening comprehension and mathematics. As a result of the encouraging results from the Action Research, this approach is increasingly being recognized as a good practice, both nationally and in the region. One provincial department of education and training has opted to use its own funds to more than double the number of bilingual education classes; 344 Mong ethnic minority children are now enrolled in these classes. Three additional provinces, Dien Ben, An Giang and Ninh Thuan, have also expressed interest in the methodology and have committed to applying the approach. The Provincial Department of Education and Training is supporting these efforts and has scaled up mother tongue-based bilingual education so that each school year from 2011 to 2015, a new group of 210 children aged five will enter mother tongue-based bilingual education classes. Specific policy recommendations on the use of bilingual education have also since been promulgated by the National Assembly and Committee for Ethnic Minorities. In addition, delegations from Myanmar and China visited Viet Nam to learn from this experience. Equally, the report from the Independent Expert raised the visibility and interest in the approach among donors and development partners in Viet Nam. These partners have expressed interest in supporting the follow-up to the Independent Expert’s recommendations. For example, the European Union delegation in Viet Nam welcomed the Independent Expert’s recommendations on the expansion of mother tongue-based instruction and requested UNICEF to prepare a concept note on how this approach could be expanded within the country. The experience of Viet Nam also highlights the important role that the United Nations country team, through its long-term presence in the country, technical expertise and normative mandate, can play in supporting the government to follow up on recommendations of the Special Procedures mandate holders. As noted by the Independent Expert, “the United Nations country team is essential and may be the only possible mechanism for follow up, given the limited capacities of Special Procedures” Since the visit of the Independent Expert on minority issues, Viet Nam’s growing engagement with other human rights mechanisms is leading to greater international exposure on the issue of bilingual education. The country recently reported to the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (March 2012)14 and the Committee on the Rights of the Child (June 2012).15 Both Committees, in their Concluding Observations to Viet Nam, urged the country to increase the provision of bilingual education programmes for ethnic minority children, further supporting and validating Viet Nam’s efforts in this area. Lessons Learned The Universal Periodic Review presents an opportunity for government to strengthen its engagement with all international human rights mechanisms and for the United Nations country team to support government capacity in engaging with these mechanisms. The United Nations country team can play an important role in maximizing the value and impact of the visits of Special Procedures mandate holders. Engaging with the United Nations country team during a country visit allows the Special Procedures to draw upon the expertise of development agencies to offer concrete and useful recommendations that can help the government move forward on human rights issues. Access to quality and appropriate education is a gateway to development and poverty reduction for minorities. The introduction of bilingual education for minority children can help these children to make better early progress and creates strong and culturallyappropriate foundations for their future schooling. The recommendations of international human rights mechanisms can provide valuable and authoritative inputs to integrate human rights into United Nations advocacy, policy and programming initiatives to further development outcomes. The visits of Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council can ensure that government efforts to address human rights challenges and to mainstream human rights into development programmes benefit from internationally-recognized expertise. Endnotes UNICEF Action research brief UNICEF, Vietnam and the Millennium Development Goals United Nations in Viet Nam Website United Nations compilation report to the Universal Periodic Review, OHCHR, March 2009, A/HRC/WG.6/5/VNM/2. Viet Nam Millennium Development Goals National Report 2010, p. 114. Concluding Observations by the Committee on the Rights of the Child, Viet Nam, June, 2012, CRC/C/VNM/CO/3-4. Concerns over access to freedom of information, the independence of the media from the State, freedom of assembly, the ability of individuals, groups and civil society to express their opinions or dissent publicly were noted at the interactive dialogue of the Universal Periodic Review of Viet Nam by the Human Rights Council in May 2009: A/HRC/12/11. Report of the Independent Expert on minority issues, Gay McDougall, January 2011, A/HRC/16/45/Add.2. Mission to Viet Nam (5-15 July 2010) UNICEF Annual Report 2010, p. 23. UNICEF Action research brief  Report of the United Nations Independent Expert on minority issues, Gay McDougall, 24 January 2011, A/HRC/16/45/Add.2 paras. 85, 87 and 89. Mission to Viet Nam (5-15 July 2010) UNESCO has been a key partner with UNICEF in advocating for and promoting multilingual education in Viet Nam. The 2011 “Management Document on Teaching Vietnamese to Ethnic Minority Students” of the Ministry of Education and Training, explicitly cites the Action Research on mother tongue-based bilingual education as one of the four solutions to improving education for children of ethnic minorities. Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Viet Nam, March 2012: CERD/C/VNM/CO/10-14. Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child, Viet Nam, June 2012: CRC/C/VNM/CO/3-4.