The Commission was repeatedly criticized for the composition of its membership. In particular, several of its member countries themselves had dubious
human rights records, including states whose representatives had been elected to chair the Commission. Countries with records of human rights abuses like torture,
extrajudicial killings,
political imprisonment, and disappearances likely sought election to the Commission to project a positive international image. Commission membership also provided some political shelter from criticism of these abuses. Another criticism was that the Commission did not engage in constructive discussion of human rights issues, but was a forum for politically selective finger-pointing and criticism. The desire of states with problematic human rights records to be elected to the Commission was viewed largely as a way to defend themselves from such attacks. Activist groups had long expressed concern over the memberships of the
China,
Zimbabwe,
Russia,
Saudi Arabia, and
Pakistan, and the past memberships of
Algeria,
Syria,
Libya,
Uganda, and
Vietnam on the Commission. These countries had extensive records of human rights violations, and one concern was that by working against resolutions on the Commission condemning human rights violations, they indirectly promoted despotism and domestic repression. One major consequence of the election of Sudan to the Commission was the lack of willingness of some countries to work through the Commission. For example, on July 30, 2004, it was the
United Nations Security Council, not the Commission, that passed
a resolution—by 13–0, with China and Pakistan abstaining, threatening Sudan with unspecified sanctions if the situation in the Darfur region did not improve within the following 30 days. The reasons given for the action were the attacks by the
Janjaweed Arab militias of Sudan on the non-Arab African
Muslim population of Darfur, a region in western Sudan. The Commission had also come under repeated criticism from the United States for its unwillingness to address other human rights concerns. In 2001, the United States was voted off the Commission by the other member states, many of which have been criticized for their human rights violations, and in 2003, Syria put forward a proposal to discuss US
war crimes in Iraq. However, the American journalist
Anne Applebaum wrote that "the
European Union and the United States aren't exempt from blame, either." She cited their hesitance in voting to criticize
Russia's actions in
Chechnya.
Israel The Commission was also criticized by advocates of Israel for
bias against Israel. In 2002,
Anne Bayefsky, a professor of international law at York University in Toronto, wrote that "commission members seek to avoid directly criticizing states with human rights problems, frequently by focusing on Israel, a state that, according to analysis of summary records, has for over 30 years occupied 15 percent of commission time and has been the subject of a third of country-specific resolutions". On April 15, 2002, the Commission approved a resolution affirming the "legitimate right of the Palestinian people to resist the Israeli occupation in order to free its land and be able to exercise its right of self-determination". In so doing, the Palestinian people was declared "fulfilling its mission, one of the goals and purposes of the United Nations". Of the 53-member commission, 40 countries voted yes, five voted no, and seven abstained. Although widely reported that the resolution condoned resistance to Israel by "all available means, including armed struggle", the resolution itself does not contain those words. Alfred Moses, a former United States ambassador to the Commission who is now the chairman of the monitoring group
UN Watch, said, "A vote in favour of this resolution is a vote for Palestinian terrorism." In a letter to the Commission on November 15, 2002, following an attack by Palestinians on Israelis in the town of Hebron, Nabil Ramlawi, the Permanent Observer for Palestine at the UN, appealed to the resolution as justification for the attack.
Human rights and mental health In 1977, the Commission formed a "Sub-Commission to study, with a view to formulating guidelines, if possible, the question of the protection of those detained on the grounds of mental ill-health against treatment that might adversely affect the human personality and its physical and intellectual integrity." The sub-commission was charged with "determin[ing] whether adequate grounds existed for detaining persons on the grounds of mental ill-health." The guidelines that resulted,
UN Principles for the Protection of Persons with Mental Illness and for the Improvement of Mental Health Care, have been criticized for ignoring and failing to protect the rights of involuntary patients. ==Genocide==