Overview
Note: this does not cover all positions and all issue areas

Universal Periodic Review: Countries continued to debate the nature of the universal periodic review. The EU, for example, sought to expand the review to look not only at fulfillment of a country's human rights obligations and commitments, but fulfillment of international human rights standards. CARICOM would like to see more explicit language that will further clarify scope and criteria and various other countries continue to seek limits on follow-up.

Prevention: The Council's future role regarding prevention of human rights violation remains a contentious issue with some pushing for deletion of such references and others emphasizing the importance of this role.

Recommendations to UN Bodies: Countries continued to disagree as to whether the Council should be making recommendations primarily to the General Assembly or the UN system. The EU has insisted on the latter.

Review of Commission's Mandate and Functions: In response to new references to reviews and discussion on streamlining, various countries have emphasized the importance of preserving "the" existing system of special procedures as opposed to "a" system of special procedures.

Membership/Elections: The provision calling for two-thirds majority elections appeared to be a potential bottom line for countries pushing for palpable reforms. The opposing group continued to question arguments for a smaller Council with stricter guidelines for elections, maintaining support for 53 members elected by simple majority. Many of the Latin American countries expressed concern over losing seats to equitable geographic distribution. Brazil, for example, now favors election by simple majority, but is willing to consider alternative proposals.

Standards/Criteria: On membership, CANZ highlighted the importance of active commitments from Council members on meeting obligations under the human rights instruments. Despite lack of support, the United States has maintained its focus on including firm standards for membership such as letters from candidates pledging their willingness to abide by human rights standards, endorsements from regional groups, and exclusion of countries under Security Council sanctions for human rights violations or terrorism. Mexico endorsed the new language in the document, noting that it pushed states to prove their commitment without being exclusionary.

Sessions/Weeks: While the EU and others maintain the need for a minimum of 4-6 meetings for no less than 12 weeks per year, others have suggested two sessions for eight week or a maximum of three sessions for 10 weeks.

NGO Participation: Various countries recognized that the participation of NGOs is of particular importance for the functioning of the Human rights Council stressing the need to maintain and strengthen the current level of NGO participation with direct involvement of NGOs in the daily work of the Council. CANZ noted that the group would not support weaker language on NGO participation. Argentina also emphasized that states should not be responsible for deciding which NGOs can participate. Opposing countries, however, reiterated their call to streamline NGO participation.

Review: the EU and others questioned the relevance of a one-year review of the Council's work and functioning, arguing that this should occur within the Council on an ongoing basis.

Country-Specific Resolutions: the co-chairs faced opposition on their deletion of language on regulating country-specific resolutions (formerly OP13).

Source: Reform the UN