The legitimacy of the Goldstone follow-up committee ultimately depends upon the reputation and impartiality of its members, including its former head—Professor Christian Tomuschat.

UN mandate holders are expected to act as independent United Nations experts. The UN’s Code of Conduct for Human Rights Council (‘Code’) establishes standards of impartiality and independence which apply to all UN mandate holders. These standards are designed to function as vital safeguards against potential abuses of power. Article 3 of the Code lays down the general principles of conduct applicable to mandate holders. It states that mandate holders shall:

“act in an independent capacity, and exercise their functions in accordance with their mandate, through a professional, impartial assessment of facts based on internationally recognized human rights standards, and free from any kind of extraneous influence, incitement, pressure, threat or interference, either direct or indirect, on the part of any party, whether stakeholder or not, for any reason whatsoever, the notion of independence being linked to the status of mandate-holders, and to their freedom to assess the human rights questions that they are called upon to examine under their mandate.”

The article further provides that mandate holders shall “uphold the highest standards of efficiency, competence and integrity, meaning, in particular, though not exclusively, probity, impartiality, equity, honesty and good faith;” and they shall “neither seek nor accept instructions from any Government, individual, governmental or non-governmental organization or pressure group whatsoever.” Under Article 5 of the Code, mandate holders are required to make a written declaration that they shall “shall perform [their] duties and exercise [their] functions from a completely impartial, loyal and conscientious standpoint.”

The UN Watch Goldstone II report raises serious questions concerning the objectivity and impartiality of Professor Christian Tomuschat, and calls into question the credibility of the UN’s Goldstone follow-up committee. The report cites specific publications and statements by Professor Tomuschat which show that he has a history of anti-Israel bias. Even more importantly, the report highlights the pervasive nature and extent of this bias. Thus, the report documents that Professor Tomuschat performed legal work for PLO leader Yasser Arafat, and compared Israeli actions to World War II barbarism. Professor Tomuschat’s highly prejudicial statements and close association with the Palestinian cause not only diminish public confidence in Professor Tomuschat’s ability to assess facts independently in the Israeli-Arab conflict, but also reinforce the impression that the Goldstone follow-up committee may have failed to properly carry out its mandate under his leadership .