The Declaration of Human Rights includes a provision against abortion- forced or voluntary- for which many, if not most, countries in the west stand in violation. Does that go too far?

The document is long on intent and ideals but short of definitions and enforcement. Signatories to the treaty can not be reported for violations- they have to admit to their own crimes. Citizens of signatories can not make representations under the treaty- only national governments can do so. A bad report can not be acted upon unless a follow up report by the nation involved shows no sign of improvement. Investigations of the bad reports have to be approved by the signatory. All investigative reports arising from this second report are confidential and only those matters addressed in the initial complaint can be investigated.

The HRC is made up of members on a regional basis- the same as in the security council. There are no minimum qualifications; there are no grounds for disbarring any member. The HRC has had individuals judging these matters who are actually offenders under the terms of the treaty. The HRC meets for two weeks five times a year; all reports are held by the HRC secretariat and can not be discusses outside of the meetings because they have technical judicial force but can not compel testimony or call witnesses unless the country involved agrees. Signatories can not be compelled to accept recomendations made by the HRC. Of some 150+ signatories, approximately one third are in significant arrears for their annual reports; of the 100 or so reports received only 20% to 30% are actually looked at in depth- several of those received are proforma reports and are simply rubber stamped. Each regional bloc is dealth with in turn. Any commisioner can raise a question in regards to any report which often means that the rights of Tasmania's homosexual community or Quebec separatists receive more attention than evidence of actual genocide.

So not only does the country have to dob itself in, twice, but it also has to permit an investigation, assemble the witnesses against it and then, when all is said and done, the whole thing can remain quiet at their insistence.

If a nation invades another to prevent human rights abuses under the terms of the treaty, it can not bring evidence of these abuses before the HRC as it does not have de jour recognition as to ownership of the territory involved. Annexation must be recognised by the General Assembly of the UN before it can be accepted by the HRC. As such the treaty can not, technically, be used as the basis for a trial of war criminals unless approval is found in the HRC- which, as noted, can not apprise itself of the facts. Thus while the trials for events in Rwanda, Cambodia and Bosnia are being conducted under the aegis of violations of the HRT, they are being done so as an adjunct to international law and not as part of the HRC process. In other words these tribunals are an extension of Nuremberg and Tokyo rather than an application of the Treaty itself.

Non-state entities are not recognised by the HRC. If two countries are involved in a conflict, the HRC is not required to investigate non-signatories or non-state agencies. Even if two signatories are at war, the HRC can only investigate the actions of a signatory that complains about its own actions unless both signatories agree to an open investigation. Given the nature of the reporting of the HRC in relation to the Gaza conflict where the HRC specified that the investigators were to look for evidence of Israeli war crimes but only look into the veracity of allegations against Hamas it is unlikely that future agreements will be forthcoming. (Although not a nation, the Palestinian Authority is a recognised entity in the UN General Assembly and therefore a state for the purposes of membership of the various UN Committees including the HRC)

The actual Treaty Organisation meets once (maybe twice) a year and can only act on a majority vote from the HRC. All signatories have one vote regardless of their own status or record. HRC recomendations approved by the Treaty Organisation are then passed to the Security Council for implementation of the recomendations. Most recomendations are either directly voted down by the Security Council or else Vetoed by one of the permanent members.