Interview by Magda Fahsi/Human Rights Tribune – Hélène Flautre, President of the EU’s sub-commission on human rights, cast a critical eye on the Human Rights Council but refused to throw the baby out with the bathwash. On the contrary, she seeks a stronger engagement by the EU, one not based on politics but on the law.

One of your objectives in going to Geneva was to make known your concerns. What are they ?

The independence of the work of Special Rapporteurs, the ability of NGOs to intervene, the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) process…all that is important because it is in this way that the credibility of the Council and its ability to confront the most serious human rights violations in the world will play out. And then, there is the renewal of the mandate for the High Commisioner. I feel that there are states that wish that the High Commisioner and his office would serve only as a sort of Secretariat over the Council, but its mandate is much wider. It is therefore out of the question for us to agree to place the High Commisioner under the supervision of the Council.

Finally, there is going to be a new round of elections and there we think that all member candidates must be urged to at least issue a standing invitation to the Rapporteurs. But on this point, we are not backed by the European Council and that bothers us because all the member states of the EU do not comply with this criteria.

EU weakness at the heart of the Council has been criticized. What do you say about this ?

The position of some who say that the Council is the hands of the enemies of human rights and that we have nothing to do only inflames the debate among certain EU members. And if the goal is to kill the baby before it is full grown, all the bad points are obviously good to focus on. That being said, even if its numerical weight is weak, when the EU decides to move, it can win decisive battles. And that was seen during the adoption of the institutional package.

In the case of Special Reporteurs, you have openly congratulated Romanian President Costea for having allowed certain candidates through but a president is no more democratic than a committee of ambassadors and if it had been another president you might also have been critical.

Costea’s objective was to reinforce the independence and the expertise of the Rapporterus. And he found that within those proposed, he did not have a sufficient choice. Therefore he acted a bit authoritively for a president, that is clear. That could be a precedent.

In its resolution the (EU) Parliament launched an appeal for the European Union to take into account the results of Universal Periodic Review in its aid and assistance programs. How do you se that ?

The EU could strengthen the engagements taken by member states during UPR by financing a certain number of concrete projects within its assistance programmes to third tier countries. That would reinforce and give coherence to the whole system.

Then the idea is not to say: no aid if you don’t respect your committments ?

No, for that, we have a human rights clause in most of our agreements with third party countries. The objective is to reinforce the stakes and the importance of the UPR and at the same time push towards the realization of objectives that were brought to light during the examination.

Doesn’t that risk reinforcing the EU’s image as lecturing to others ?

That’s a joke, the idea of lecturing to others ! No one has a lesson to learn from others but that’s not the point. The point is that there are common committments that have been made. All signatories of the same convention have the obligation to put them into force at home, of course, but also in all other member states. Therefore, it is not a question of a lesson, it’s a question of doing one’s job.

There are also things one can reproach the EU for…

No question about that ! Moreover with the debates on human rights with third party countries, notably China and Russia, points are always raised – take the question of immigration, the EU states are constantly called on the carpet and that’s very good !

How do you explain the systematic abstention by the EU on resolutions concerning the Middle East on the pretext that they are not ‘balanced’ ?

Yes, moreover the last resolution on this subject resulted in different votes by EU member states, some abstained while others voted against. Both were wrong. To say that resolutions must be balanced makes no sense ; to say that they should address in an impartial and objective mannger the human rights violations by both sides, that is correct. And that is what must be done. Personally, I have never adhered to the notion of balance. It is the law that must govern, not political options.