International Human Rights and the International Human Rights System A Manual for National Human Rights Institutions 3.3. The procedure The complaint procedure has two working groups with responsibilities for different aspects of the process: • the Working Group on Communications, consisting of five independent experts selected by the HRC Advisory Committee from among its own members • the Working Group on Situations, consisting of the representatives of five States, one from each regional grouping. The procedure has four principal stages. 1. Complaints receive an initial screening for admissibility by the Chairperson of the Working Group on Communications and the secretariat to eliminate any that are “manifestly ill-founded or anonymous”.251 2. The Working Group on Communications determines the admissibility of each complaint not screened out in stage one and makes an initial assessment of its merits.252 Complaints found to be admissible and to reveal “consistent patterns of gross and reliably attested violations of all human rights and all fundamental freedoms” are referred by the Working Group on Communications to the Working Group on Situations.253 3. The Working Group on Situations investigates the substance of the complaints referred to it by the Working Group on Communications and reports to the HRC plenary meeting where it finds “consistent patterns of gross and reliably attested violations of all human rights and all fundamental freedoms”.254 4. The HRC discusses the report of the Working Group on Situations in a confidential session and decides on the basis of the report how to respond to complaints. It can decide to continue with confidential handling of the complaint or to hold a public debate on a situation in accordance with another procedure inherited from the former Commission on Human Rights.255 States seem willing to engage more with the HRC’s complaint procedure than with other international complaints procedures. They respond more frequently and more comprehensively to allegations contained in complaints and to other inquiries about complaints sent to them under this procedure, providing both information about the specific allegations and general information about the human rights situations. Three reasons are suggested for this: • the confidentiality of the procedure, whereby States feel confident to provide frank responses without fear of exposure or public criticism • the fact that the procedure is controlled by States, which places peer pressure on them to be seen to be cooperative and responsive • the nature of the procedure as a politically-based, peer-review process, like the Universal Periodic Review, whereby States comment on the performance of other States within the State-based framework of the HRC, so ensuring political protection and support while a situation is being considered and then measured responses, if any response results, without the involvement of independent legal experts. 251 HRC Resolution 5/1; para. 94. 252 HRC Resolution 5/1; para. 95. 253 HRC Resolution 5/1; para. 95. 254 HRC Resolution 5/1; para. 98. 255 Economic and Social Council Resolution 1235 (LXII). 88 | Chapter 13: International complaint procedures