A/HRC/15/39 far met three times (two informal meetings and one formal meeting). Despite the principle of non-interference that ASEAN adhered to, the speaker noted that there currently existed within ASEAN increasing recognition of the universality of human rights and that human rights were not only domestic concerns but transcended national borders. He noted that a balance had had to be reached in the establishment of AICHR, recognizing the diversity in the region, while seeking to make it a credible mechanism. The speaker acknowledged arguments that there were contradictions in the AICHR terms of reference, but stated that compromises had to be made and argued that ASEAN was taking an evolutionary approach and that was just the beginning. 17. Regarding the key elements in the AICHR terms of reference, the speaker specified that AICHR was an intergovernmental body, distinguishing it from other regional mechanisms that were more independent. It was the overarching human rights body for ASEAN, not in the sense that it would subsume other human rights bodies, but that it would help to coordinate the human rights work of ASEAN. He observed that AICHR would operate according to a consensus that emerged from discussion as opposed to voting, with one or two countries not holding back the views of the majority. In terms of promotion and protection, he acknowledged the criticism of AICHR for its “lack of teeth” in terms of a protection mandate, with no explicit mandate given, for instance, to consider individual complaints. However, he countered that AICHR still had “baby teeth”, and that it did have the mandate to obtain information on human rights developments, write reports on human rights issues for submission to ASEAN foreign ministers, engage with civil society, and meet in different countries of the region. Furthermore, there were elements that could lead to a protection role if AICHR members were creative enough. He acknowledged that AICHR must have the means to do its work, touching on the importance of funding and secretariat support. The speaker said that, following its second formal meeting at the end of June and the agreement of its workplan, AICHR would move on to promotion, norm-setting and the development of elements of protection. He emphasized that AICHR would have to make the process of evolution an inclusive one, and that it would have to act as a catalyst to encourage national Governments to strengthen national legislation and institutions. 18. Ms. Sriprapha Petcharamesree, the representative of Thailand to AICHR, noted that AICHR was the first step towards the development of an Asia-Pacific regional human rights system, and also noted that it was an important milestone for the people of ASEAN. She emphasized that the terms of reference represented the maximum that was acceptable to ASEAN members, and that by raising awareness of the human rights responsibilities of Governments AICHR would help to prevent some human rights violations from occurring in the region. She expressed her hope that AICHR would eventually become a credible human rights institution. She noted the diversity of the AICHR members, with diplomats, human rights commissioners, a judge and civil society representatives all sitting together. The speaker acknowledged that there would be a wide range of ideas being aired, which was good in that many voices would be heard, but that would also make reaching a consensus a challenge. Focusing on the value added, she said that regional human rights mechanisms did not obviate the need for national mechanisms, and that human rights were still best implemented at the national level. Nevertheless, regional mechanisms had an important role to play in capacity-building, education, creating regional networks and assisting with the creation and development of national human rights mechanisms. The speaker said regional mechanisms were also able to bring more focus and regional specificity to the work of the international human rights system. In conclusion, she reminded participants that AICHR was still only six months old, and had yet to learn how to manage or bridge its gaps, but emphasized that dialogue with all stakeholders was vital in the process. She noted that the process was very much an evolutionary one and expressed her hope that AICHR would not take too long to evolve into an effective mechanism. 7