A/HRC/15/39 19. Ms. Petcharamesree acknowledged that while there had been a lot of criticism regarding the independence of AICHR, much came down to how the individual members interpreted their role. With respect to the development of an ASEAN Human Rights Declaration, she stressed the importance of it not falling below international standards. She stated that AICHR did not exist in isolation, but formed part of a wider ASEAN architecture of which human rights should also be a part. She also emphasized that in order for AICHR to know what needed changing and for it to become a relevant body, it would need to get close to those who suffered from human rights violations. 20. Mr. Rafendi Djamin noted three points in respect of AICHR. First, regarding the fundamental issue of independence, he observed that the AICHR members were Government appointees and were accountable to their respective Governments. Nevertheless, he stated that the terms of reference provided the opportunity for each member State to organize consultations at the national level in selecting their representatives to AICHR, and two of the current members had come from an open national selection process. Therefore, he saw hope that more countries in the future would follow that example. He also explained that AICHR was a principal organ of ASEAN and a Charter-based institution which would have a key role to play in integrating the three ASEAN pillars (security, socio-cultural and economic) into one ASEAN community. Regarding the other human rights mechanisms and instruments being developed by ASEAN, the speaker emphasized that AICHR had an overarching role to play in bringing those different elements together to strengthen the overall human rights framework. Concerning the ability to receive petitions, he observed that civil society was already demanding that AICHR take on that role. He saw that as a good sign, as it showed that there was a lot of expectation and hope coming from civil society. Lastly, he noted that it would be important to reflect on how the Asia-Pacific Regional Framework could support the establishment of new regional mechanisms and help link regional processes with the international human rights system. 21. The Pacific Islands Forum updated participants on developments in its region, noting that the Pacific Plan included mention of human rights, and that the Forum hoped to start a scoping study for the creation of a regional human rights mechanism for the Pacific. It was noted that in the Pacific region, the universal periodic review had inspired dialogue about regional human rights mechanisms and national human rights institutions. 22. In the discussion, the importance of the regional context was highlighted, in particular that regional mechanisms had emerged out of the broader regional dynamics or community-building processes in their different regions. That had resulted in a flexible, evolutionary process, as mechanisms had grown and developed and found new ways to enrich both their regional systems and the international human rights system. As a result, there was diversity among regional human rights mechanisms in terms of their form, substance, powers, membership and resources. What was common, though, was the way in which they had evolved historically and contextually over time to play an ever more influential and protective role. For example, the League of Arab States updated the Arab Charter on Human Rights, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights strengthened the criteria and independence of its membership, and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights developed a method for handling individual complaints and experimented with country visits. Mr. Muntarbhorn also reminded participants that the real test for all human rights mechanisms, whether national or international, was the implementation and enforcement of their various findings and recommendations. 23. There was a recognition that regional arrangements played a fundamental role in promoting and protecting human rights, and that while those arrangements would evolve differently in different regional contexts, they should reinforce universal human rights standards as contained in international human rights instruments. There was strong interest 8