The Council of Europe is responsible for both the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights.  These institutions link the members of the Council to a stricter but more lenient code of human rights than that of the Un Human Rights Charter. [Citation required] The Human Rights Council maintained most of the special procedures, including the confidential “1503” (now “compliant procedure”) and implemented the Universal Peer Review (UPR). Since April 2008, one third of UN Member States have gone through this process. The UPR sUPR has similarities to the African peer review mechanism established under the New Partnership for African Development (NEPAD). In addition to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the General Assembly adopted many other declarations. If there is sufficient consensus among states, declarations can be converted into binding agreements. It shows that crucial issues, such as the protection of non-hegemonic citizenship, do not agree. The two relevant declarations – the Declaration on the Rights of Ethnic, Religious and Language Minority Persons, adopted in 1992, and the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples adopted in 2007 – have not been translated into binding instruments.
The same applies to the Declaration on the Right to Development, adopted in 1986. There are several important differences between the former Human Rights Commission and the current Human Rights Council. As the subsidiary body of the General Assembly, the Council enjoys a higher status vis-à-vis the Commission, which has been a functional body of the Economic and Social Council. It has a slightly smaller number of members (47 states) and its members are elected by an absolute majority of the Assembly (97 states). In order to avoid prolonged domination by certain states, members can only be elected for two consecutive three-year terms. The Council plays the role of a permanent or permanent body that meets regularly, and not just for annual “politically charged six-week” meetings, as the Commission has done. According to the human rights selection criteria, the list of states elected by the Assembly is the opposite of the Member States of the Commission in 2006. The Assembly may, by a two-thirds majority, suspend a member who has committed gross and systematic violations of human rights. Two decisions taken by sub-regional courts illustrate the growing importance of UCs in the protection of human rights. In 2007, the Court affirmed that Uganda had violated the AEC Treaty by re-arresting 14 defendants after receiving bail.3 The Court found in 2007 that Uganda had violated the doctrine of the rule of law, as set out in the fundamental principles of the EAC.