Not many people know what a Special Rapporteur actually does. They’re independent experts appointed by the United Nations Human Rights Council to report on specific human rights issues. What’s even less known is that these individuals do this critical work without earning a single penny.
That’s right—they’re not paid for their efforts, whether it’s investigating abuses, issuing reports, sending letters of allegation or urgent appeals to member states or advocating for victims of violations.
It’s a role that demands independence, impartiality, and often courage, given the sensitive and controversial topics they handle.
Special Rapporteurs are not traditional UN staff and, therefore, do not fall under the standard UN rules and regulations. Consequently, they are excluded from the UN’s system of administration of justice, leaving them with no legal avenues to appeal administrative decisions. Furthermore, since they are not classified as staff, key policies such as the Secretary-General’s Bulletins and ST/AIs on harassment, abuse of authority, and discrimination do not apply to them.
Here’s the bombshell that no one’s talking about.
Four (non-Western) Special Rapporteurs—the very people entrusted to call out human rights violations—are currently themselves being targeted, harassed and discriminated against. Alarmingly, OHCHR has recently allowed non-governmental interest and lobbying groups, particularly Western ones, to target Special Rapporteurs simply for holding divergent views. These independent experts have also experienced harassment and discrimination by senior officials within OHCHR.
The Human Rights Council, instead of defending its own experts, is now undermining them from within.
Their so-called ‘offense’?
Doing their job with integrity, standing firm on their independent positions, and holding governments accountable for their shortcomings on critical human rights issues.
Special Rapporteurs are appointed as independent experts to bring diverse, unbiased perspectives to human rights advocacy. Regardless of their mandates, race or nationalities, OHCHR has no right to harass, bully, or interfere with their work, as doing so undermines the very purpose of their appointments—to provide independent, expert views that may challenge prevailing norms and advocate for human rights with member states.
It’s simply outrageous.
Why appoint these experts if the Council itself can’t handle their independence?
It’s an outright betrayal of everything the Human Rights Council stands for.
The Human Rights Council, OHCHR, and the Secretary-General have an obligation to safeguard the independence and reputation of Special Rapporteurs. While it’s true that Special Rapporteurs don’t report to the Secretary-General, the High Commissioner for Human Rights does.
Together with the Human Rights Council, the High Commissioner has a moral duty to ensure that Special Rapporteurs are allowed to work independently, even when their stances differ from those of the Council.
After all, isn’t that why they were appointed in the first place—to provide independent, expert opinions?
Or is the entire system nothing more than a calculated facade, designed to give the illusion of accountability while silencing those who challenge its status quo?
If the Human Rights Council and the High Commissioner can’t handle differing views, then stop hiding behind this masquerade.
The last thing the UN needs is for the body meant to protect human rights to turn on human rights defenders.
#HumanRights #OHCHR #SpecialRapporteurs #Accountability #HumanRightsCouncil#IndependentExperts #Retaliation
#UNWatchdog #StopHarassment #FreedomOfSpeech
Afraid this is a sign of what is to come over the next 4 years.
Dear Nadine, thank you for this post and I admire your bravery speaking out on critical transparency and accountability issues at the UN. This space is critical. For this piece – while I am in full agreement that the independence of SRs should not be interfered by the HRC, OHCHR, States or other entities – I also wish to flag that there are situations where rapporteurs, who have taken the position that the UN is interfering with their independence, have also actively abused the UN staff supporting their mandate, leading to their emotional distress, burnout and disillusionment. Many staff have suffered in silence and left to deal with the hostile work environment without any recourse for years. After a long time coming, when finally managers steps up to protect staff from the mandate holder, they have been accused of interfering with the mandate’s independence and retaliating them for their views. How would you advise on situations like this? This is not to say the four SRs you have mentioned in this article are all such cases. But I do wish to highlight that in some situations the picture may be more complicated than what appears in the surface.