A/HRC/38/18 more crucial.13 Some submissions suggested that certain accreditation practices had become politicized14 and might constitute a form of reprisals. 15 For example, the process of asking questions during meetings of the Committee was identified as a means to block critical voices, which resulted in repeated deferrals of and de facto rejections of applications for consultative status with the Economic and Social Council, 16 reportedly targeting civil society organizations because of their engagement with the United Nations human rights mechanisms and other regional and international organizations. 22. Submissions also pointed to the lack of transparency and accountability in relation to the granting of consultative status and the lack of due process and grievance mechanisms with respect to the recommendations on applications for consultative status by the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations. The Secretary-General, in his report on cooperation with the United Nations, urged the Committee to apply the criteria for assessing organizations in a fair and transparent manner, in their decisions regarding granting accreditation to civil society organizations, and their working methods in general (see A/HRC/33/19, para. 15). In article 56 of its resolution 1996/31, the Economic and Social Council stated that written reasons or justifications for decisions should be given and civil society should have an opportunity to present its response for appropriate consideration by the Committee. However, a number of cases where aggrieved stakeholders were not provided with sufficient justification had been reported. The lack of transparency made it impossible to judge whether decisions were taken in a non-discriminatory manner. There was also no avenue to appeal the lack of compliance by the Committee with the very provisions that governed it. 17 In a welcome development, however, at its April 2017 coordination and management meeting, the Council decided that future sessions of the Committee would be webcast in order to increase transparency of its proceedings. 23. Concerns also were raised about States citing alleged links to terrorism and other security concerns to hamper the participation or accreditation of civil society organizations. 18 For instance, several contributors pointed out that certain organizations, including women human rights defenders, had been prevented from participating in the Commission on the Status of Women at its sixty-first session, owing to visa denials, security and other concerns.19 24. At some organizations, like FAO, different organizational bodies were responsible for granting various accreditation statuses. UNODC required an application for observer status in addition to accreditation by the Economic and Social Council. Some entities had their own accreditation processes independent of the Council, like the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. The Open-ended Working Group on Ageing, on the other hand, allowed for participation without accreditation by the Council. The Council of ICAO decided on participation primarily through conferring ad hoc observer status to civil society organizations. 25. The rules on granting civil society organizations accreditation to gain access to the sessions of the various subsidiary expert mechanisms established by the Human Rights Council encouraged the participation of civil society. 20 With a view to serving as a platform for dialogue and cooperation on relevant issues, those mechanisms were open to NGOs in consultative status with the Economic and Social Council as well as other NGOs whose aims and purposes were “in conformity with the spirit, purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations”. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 8 See www.freedom-now.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/ECOSOC-NGO-Committee-ReformLetter.pdf. Similar concerns related to the politicization of the Committee were mentioned by UNDESA, Alkarama, International Dalit Solidarity Network and others. Submission by the Governments of the United States and Switzerland. Alkarama. Submissions by the Governments of the United States of America, Ireland and Switzerland. See O. de Frouville, NGOs in International Law (2008), chap. 2, “and yet the governmental structure of the Committee makes it impossible for it to fulfil its missions”. Alkarama, Journalists and Writers Assoc. See also https://wilpf.org/at-the-csw61-wilpf-raises-issue-of-missingvoices-to-the-highest-level/. See Human Rights Council resolutions 6/13, 6/15, 6/36, 17/4, 28/14 and 33/25.