Each session of the UNHRC follows a set agenda consisting of ten items. All these items, except from one, are phrased in a general and inclusive way and deal with different human rights issues. However, Item 7 is the only item which is country specific and singles out one country, Israel. The title of the item is “Human Rights Situation in Palestine and Other Occupied Arab Territories.” Because of this Item, Israel is being disproportionally condemned during every session.

Israel is condemned with four one-sided and biased resolutions each year whereas oppressive regimes like Iran and  North Korea are criticized in only one resolution and most of the world’s worst regimes are not subject to any criticism.

The UNHRC has the ability to call special sessions on emergency human rights issues. Of the 32 sessions targeting specific countries, 9 have been against Israel, 5 focusing on Syria, 3 on Myanmar and one on Libya.

The UNHRC appoints special rapporteurs or independent experts on a particular country or theme. Its “Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967” has a biased mandate that only looks into Israel and ignores abuses perpetrated by Hamas or the PA against Palestinians. It is also the only mandate that does not undergo regular review and renewal. Last but not least, the current mandate holder, international lawyer Francesca Albanese, is a long-time anti-Israel activist, who lacks the necessary impartiality and professionalism.

While obsessively focusing on Israel, the Council, in its debates, reports and resolutions, systematically ignores or downplays violations perpetrated by the Hamas against Israeli civilians.

The Council takes no action on most of the gross and systemic violators around the world, thus not living up to its founding purposes. Regimes that fully disregard human rights, such as North Korea, are not mentioned at all at the Council and not called out at this international platform.

Countries which are elected to the UNHRC must uphold “the highest standards of human rights.” However, the sad reality is that some of the world’s worst perpetrators of human rights abuses sit as judges and jury at the Council, granting impunity for most of the world’s worst regimes, including Iraq, and Pakistan.

UNHRC members often vote in block on different issues which creates automatic majorities within the Council and hinders debate.

The debates of the Council are often politicized and divisive, an opportunity for grand standing for member states, and not a platform for constructive and productive engagement. Countries would rather avoid criticizing an ally or a friendly country than deal with the human rights issue at hand.

Due to these structural reasons, the Council regularly fails victims on the ground, lacks an ability to intervene ahead of time and perpetrators often go unpunished.