What if they held a human rights meeting but didn’t discuss any current human rights issues?

That was the outcome of the final session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, which on March 27 concluded its 60-year work. The meeting reviewed the Commission’s history, but did not consider any of today’s human rights challenges.

The Commission is to be replaced by a new United Nations body, the Human Rights Council, that is intended to have greater accountability and transparency, and will meet more frequently.

Ironically, issues of religious freedom and conscience were raging worldwide as the Commission began its meetings. In some nations many are still protesting a Danish newspaper’s publication of cartoons that allegedly insulted the religion of Islam. And as the panel met, authorities in Kabul, Afghanistan, ended the prosecution of Abdul Rahman, a 41-year-old Afghani for converting from Islam to Christianity. Rahman, whose cause had been advocated by numerous world leaders and groups including the Seventh-day Adventist Church, is reportedly seeking political asylum outside of Afghanistan.

Calling the transition “a quiet or maybe not so quiet human rights revolution,” Louise Arbour, the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, acknowledged the many achievements of the former Commission, but added they had not been perfect.

Other speakers pointed to issues of politics and double standards that have plagued the Commission. The Commission has been “undermined by the politicization of its sessions” and its “declining credibility has cast a shadow on the reputation of the United Nations system as a whole,” said U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan.

According to Dr. Jonathan Gallagher, Seventh-day Adventist world church representative to the United Nations, the commission missed an opportunity to handle matters of substance.

“It is regrettable that the Commission gave no attention to human rights issues at all in its 62nd session,” he observed. “All the delays and postponements caused by the backroom negotiations meant no one had the opportunity to make any presentations on substantive issues. We came prepared to speak out on several issues, especially religious freedom violations, and were denied any chance to speak. We agree with the Ambassador of Brazil who spoke of his deep dissatisfaction over a session stripped of all substance, with no opportunity to deal with issues of concern. Similarly we echo the words of the Ambassador of the Netherlands who called for the role of non-government organizations to continue to be emphasized.”