Observations from the UN Human Rights Council’s 62nd Session

The UN Human Rights Council’s 62nd session

The Human Rights Council (HRC) is a subsidiary body of the UN General Assembly tasked with promoting universal respect for, and protection of, human rights and fundamental freedoms. The 62nd session of the HRC, which concluded in Geneva on July 8, essentially maintained the ideological course familiar from previous years.

The proceedings addressed in detail numerous cases of human rights violations in countries such as Sudan and Eritrea, but also took up human-rights issues relating to the current situation in our region — in Ukraine, Belarus, and Germany. The reports and discussions presented were replete with ideological content related to gender, invoked “reproductive and sexual rights” on every occasion, and, as has become traditional, again presented abortion as an almost indispensable service — this time for “preventing” teenage pregnancies.

The growing engagement of the Ordo Iuris Institute at the UN nonetheless makes sense and is bearing real fruit: among the numerous documents discussed during the session was also a report devoted entirely to violence and discrimination against mothers, which took into account the position submitted earlier by the Ordo Iuris Institute in the course of international consultations.

Given the sheer volume of material, it is not possible in such a brief summary to discuss, even briefly, every topic raised during the session, or to present all the most interesting threads that emerged in the course of the discussions — I have therefore chosen to select only a few threads that, in my view, are most significant from Poland’s perspective.

It should also be noted that, because the session closed only a few days ago, the full texts of the adopted resolutions are not yet available. The resolutions and decisions adopted during the session will be published on the UN Human Rights Council’s website only once all the documents have been finalized, translated, and published in all six UN languages. This commentary therefore refers primarily to the reports prepared and presented at the recent session, and to the proceedings themselves.

Genocide awaiting a resolution

Although agenda item seven formally concerned the human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories, no report was presented under that item.

The subject of the Middle East nonetheless arose during the session under agenda item two, when the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory and Israel presented its fifth report on events since October 7, 2023 (A/HRC/62/22). This year the Commission described in detail the violence committed by non-state actors — that is, Israeli settlers and Palestinian armed groups — while firmly reiterating its own finding that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza.

An additional document devoted to the situation of Palestinian children goes even further, finding that Israeli authorities and security forces “continue to commit the crime of genocide,” crimes against humanity, and war crimes in Gaza and the West Bank (A/HRC/62/CRP.2 — point M, para. 331).

It should be remembered that the above are “only” the Commission’s findings, and although the Commission presented its position during the session, among the 28 adopted resolutions one looks in vain for a document that directly addresses Palestine.

At the same time, it is worth emphasizing that the Commission did not present a one-sided picture of the conflict: the report notes Hamas’s violence against those accused of collaboration (249 cases, at least 108 fatalities).

The Secretary-General’s recurring report on the prevention of genocide likewise makes no mention of Palestine, but for a different reason: the report was simply not completed on time. As explained in a note from the Secretariat (A/HRC/62/27), owing to “financial constraints” facing the UN, its preparation was postponed to the 63rd session. The topic of the UN’s budget crisis in fact came up repeatedly during the session, with rapporteurs citing lack of funding as the reason certain reports were never produced.

The Human Rights Council’s constant themes: gender and abortion

The Independent Expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, Graeme Reid, presented two reports: one on his visit to Colombia (A/HRC/62/46/Add.1) and another on violence against “lesbian, bisexual, and queer persons” (A/HRC/62/46).

In the report on violence, Reid adopts an “inclusive” definition of womanhood — one that also encompasses so-called “transgender women” — and notes that, among more than 200 submissions received, a “limited number” argued for defining women solely on the basis of biological sex. Some progress in the Independent Expert’s work should be acknowledged: unlike in earlier reports, submissions that did not align with the ideological line presented by the author were not simply discarded as “hate speech,” and their full publication has been announced. We wrote about Mr. Reid’s ideological bent, among other places, in a piece published last June, “An Independent UN Expert on His Visit to Poland: The World Through an Ideologue’s Eyes.”

The High Commissioner for Human Rights, meanwhile, presented the Human Rights Council with a report on preventing teenage pregnancy (A/HRC/62/62). Unfortunately, this document, like the WHO guidelines on the same subject, essentially reduces the problem to two issues: contraception and abortion. One looks in vain in the High Commissioner’s report for any encouragement of abstinence or the promotion of stable relationships — even though these, alongside sound education, are the most effective ways to reduce the number of early pregnancies. Instead, the report calls for abolishing the requirement of third-party consent (in practice, parental consent) for minors’ access to “sexual and reproductive services,” as well as for decriminalizing abortion and sexual activity between minor “peers.” In doing so it invokes the Committee on the Rights of the Child, which found that denying a girl information about abortion exposes her to serious risk to her life and health. The right to life is perversely invoked here as an argument in favor of taking another human life — even though this is not about cases in which saving one life genuinely requires sacrificing another.

It is worth recalling at this point that, at the level of binding international law, there is no such thing as a “right to abortion” as a human right, and the first and most fundamental human right remains the right to life. The High Commissioner’s report — like any other — cannot change this legal reality; its content is a classic example of soft law, that is, a document designed to lay the groundwork for future binding standards, even though it carries no legal force of its own.

Interestingly, the High Commissioner noted in the report that some donors make funding for organizations supporting “sexual and reproductive health” conditional on the recipient organizations not being entities that “promote abortion” (cf. A/HRC/62/62 — para. 42).

The fact that this mechanism exists — and that its scale is significant — is of course welcome. It is worth noting, however, that the same mechanism working in the opposite direction — that is, when pro-life organizations are excluded from funding for not sharing donors’ ideology — has never triggered the same level of alarm or been noted in UN reports.

The UN defends motherhood alongside the Ordo Iuris Institute

The Ordo Iuris Institute’s intensified engagement at the UN bore fruit this year: its position was reflected in the report by Reem Alsalem, the Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls. The report “Violence Against Mothers” (A/HRC/62/49) is the first document in UN history devoted entirely to this issue.

Alsalem, following Ordo Iuris, points in the report to the need for greater social and legal recognition of motherhood. Drawing on 167 submissions, including 24 from states, she describes motherhood as a category requiring distinct legal protection, rooted in biological — not merely social — differences between women and men. The Special Rapporteur speaks explicitly of the “profound biological changes” that accompany pregnancy and childbirth, including hormonal and neurological changes with lasting effects on mothers’ mental health, as well as of the economic marginalization of women that follows from the simple fact of becoming a mother (the so-called “motherhood penalty”). The report shows that lower wages, limited opportunities for advancement, and systemic employment discrimination — which affect women regardless of how well they perform their professional duties — are common problems that know no national borders.

Among the sources the Special Rapporteur cites is the Ordo Iuris Institute’s position that motherhood “remains largely undervalued and mistakenly portrayed as a private choice rather than a public good requiring recognition and support.” A detailed analysis of the entire document is available here.

Given the widespread tolerance within the Human Rights Council for the ideologization of human rights, and the political correctness that often pervades the debate, Alsalem’s bold words deserve recognition — a year ago she was not afraid to boldly call for a return to defining the English term “sex” as a biological category — a dichotomous distinction between women and men based on gametes and biotechnical characteristics, in line with classical biological definitions.

This year Alsalem went a step further, addressing the replacement of words such as “woman” or “mother” with gender-neutral terminology. She noted that attempts to preserve existing terms are sometimes stigmatized as “exclusionary,” while terms such as “birth givers” or “gestational carriers” are gaining popularity. She also drew attention to the bizarre situations in which people who oppose these linguistic changes, including lactation consultants, “are demonized or excluded.”

Finally, it should be noted that Alsalem’s report introduced a seemingly small, but nonetheless important, change to the debate. To the concept of “reproductive violence” — usually reserved solely for the denial of access to abortion — Alsalem also added the coercion of women into abortion. What is more, this coercion also includes abortions carried out through (familiar to us in Poland) “postal” or telemedicine schemes, conducted without medical supervision and without the woman’s knowledge. The Special Rapporteur placed these abortions in the context of domestic violence and human trafficking. The Institute has written many times about the health risks associated with abortion, particularly in attempts to end the life of a conceived child pharmacologically without contact with a doctor — including in the context of the removal of the requirement for strict medical supervision of mifepristone, which the WHO adopted in 2019.

A separate category of “reproductive violence” also arises in connection with surrogate mothers (surrogacy): it includes, among other things, forced abortion “at the request of the commissioning parents.”

It is also worth mentioning that Reem Alsalem took part in early June in an international conference on motherhood, organized in Warsaw by the Ordo Iuris Institute, where she spoke specifically on the subject of surrogacy.

Child marriage won’t disappear for another 300 years

Among the resolutions adopted by the Council, one cannot fail to mention the resolution on child marriage, adopted without a vote (A/HRC/62/L.24/Rev.1), based on earlier guidelines from the Office of the High Commissioner (A/HRC/62/26). It is worth noting that four amendments were rejected in the vote — meaning that the adoption of the resolution as a whole does not signify a consensus among states regarding the Council’s position on child marriage.

Key to the issue are the data from the report underlying the resolution. 12 million girls marry each year before reaching the age of majority, and among living women, 650 million did so before the age of 18. The report indicates that, at the current pace of change, eliminating this practice will take another 300 years.

Antonio Mellado — advocacy director of the Geneva office of the Global Center for Human Rights — warned already at the beginning of the month on the Ordo Iuris Institute’s website that pro-abortion and gender-related language had also been smuggled into the draft of this resolution, co-authored by Poland.

Belarus and the Poles

From Poland’s perspective, the report of the Special Rapporteur on Belarus, Nils Muižnieks (A/HRC/62/52), is also significant. The Rapporteur warns of systemic pressure on the Polish national minority. Polish associations have been dissolved, the website of the Union of Poles in Belarus was declared “extremist,” and leaders — including Andrzej Poczobut, a journalist and laureate of the Sakharov Prize — were imprisoned on political charges until his release on April 28, 2026. Holders of the Karta Polaka (Pole’s Card) are increasingly treated as disloyal to the state, and the teaching of the Polish language has been eliminated from independent educational initiatives.

Muižnieks notes that Belarus remains the only country in Europe still applying the death penalty. Although more than 150 political prisoners were released in 2025, with a further 250 released in March 2026, this was accompanied by forced deportation. Such action should be regarded not so much as an improvement, but rather as the exchange of one form of repression for another.

The Russification of Ukraine

During the 62nd session of the UN Human Rights Council, the Secretary-General’s fourteenth report on the human rights situation in the occupied territories of Ukraine was also presented (A/HRC/62/59). The document points to the systematic violation of international law by Russia, which is treated as an occupying power.

The Secretary-General emphasized that, since October 2025, men aged 18 to 30 have been receiving digital conscription summonses, and a December decree turned what had been six-month conscription campaigns into a continuous process — despite the prohibition on compelling the population of occupied territory to serve in the occupying army. At least 5,557 properties deemed “abandoned” have been confiscated, and in Donetsk Oblast water rationing has been introduced, with water available for only a few hours, no more than once every three days.

Russia is also working intensively on the Russification of the occupied Ukrainian territories. Already 85,000 children have taken part in camps involving indoctrination and military training, and “patriotic-military” competitions are also being organized. In December 2025, the Ukrainian language was removed from the list of languages taught in schools.

The Secretary-General also referred to the activities of Bring Kids Back, an initiative of President Zelensky that has been operating since 2023 and focuses on “bringing home every child abducted by Russia — unconditionally and without exception.” According to the report’s data, a total of 1,972 children have returned to Ukraine. In December 2025, only seven children returned home, while the Bring Kids Back website itself states that as many as “1.6 million Ukrainian children remain under Russian control — deported, forcibly displaced, or detained in temporarily occupied territories.”

Germany and its problems with freedom of speech

From the perspective of a neighboring state, the report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression, Irene Khan, following her visit to Germany (A/HRC/62/67/Add.1), is also worth noting. Khan describes German freedom of speech as “caught in the eye of a storm” (A/HRC/62/67/Add.1 — para. 8). This conclusion follows from the observed growing polarization, rising antisemitism and Islamophobia, and the increasingly frequent recourse to criminal law to restrict freedom of speech. She also notes that the 2025 elections “dramatically reshaped” the political scene: the AfD (Alternative for Germany), despite its “exclusionary” rhetoric, doubled its support and became the second-strongest political force in the country. This correlates with the intensified use of legal tools (criminal law) against people “abusing” freedom of speech.

The Special Rapporteur is particularly concerned about the punishment in Germany of expressions of solidarity with Palestine, which are classified as “incitement to violence.” She also notes that the legally non-binding IHRA definition of antisemitism (that is, the working definition of antisemitism adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance) “has a profound impact” on freedom of expression in Germany.

The scale of the problem in Germany is illustrated by the very fact that a UN mandate holder diagnoses the problem so directly as lying in the German government’s own mechanism for restricting freedom of speech.

No reflection on the question of migrants

If, in the face of the growing social and legal problems sweeping through Europe in connection with the rising influx of people from other cultures, anyone was hoping for an “awakening” on migration, the Human Rights Council’s latest session offers little cause for optimism.

The Office of the High Commissioner’s annual report (A/HRC/62/19) praises the #StandUp4Migrants campaign directed against “dehumanizing narratives.” Migration and combating racism are discussed in the annual report in a single, shared chapter devoted to… non-discrimination. Interestingly, similar logic is confirmed in the report on combating the glorification of Nazism (A/HRC/62/56). Alongside legitimate concern about countering the growth of this terrible ideology, there appears a wholly incomprehensible interpretation under which criticism of mass migration is sometimes classified as xenophobia rather than as concern for the security and cultural identity of host states.

Unfortunately, in the context of mass migration into European states, the Human Rights Council has yet to recognize the scale of the legal violations committed by migrants, their reluctance to assimilate, or their lack of respect for the culture and customs of host societies.

In lieu of a summary

In closing, it is worth emphasizing that the financial crisis afflicting the UN comes through in a great many of the documents presented during the past session. The report on genocide prevention was not completed on time owing to “financial constraints.” The same fate befell the report on the representation of women in human rights bodies. The Working Group on discrimination against women and girls, meanwhile, noted that its 2024 session had been canceled owing to the UN’s financial “liquidity crisis.” The UN’s budgetary constraints are plain to see.

At the same time, it cannot be claimed that the past session of the Human Rights Council produced any kind of “breakthrough.” Striking is the absence of a resolution on the genocide in Gaza, even though reports from the Council’s own commission of inquiry have consistently used precisely that term for months. The call to decriminalize abortion is likewise repeated like a mantra — this time under the banner of combating teenage pregnancy — while the fundamental right to life of every human being is entirely ignored. Criticism of uncontrolled migration is still labeled xenophobia.

Nevertheless, the session, which concluded a few days ago, also allows for several positive conclusions and gives hope that, in some areas, the Human Rights Council may in the future move in the right direction. The report on violence against mothers — which took Ordo Iuris’s voice into account and honestly named coerced abortion as a form of reproductive violence — shows that rigorous, substantive argumentation can break through even ideological patterns and political correctness.

The 62nd session of the Human Rights Council thus allows, above all, for the conclusion that our engagement in this forum is not only needed but necessary — and, above all, together with the efforts of other organizations, effective.

Anna Kubacka – analyst, Ordo Iuris Center for International Law

See also:

• “Motherhood in the 21st Century”—An International Ordo Iuris Conference in Warsaw
• Ideological Language Curbed Under International Pressure—Final Document of the UN Commission on the Status of Women
• Increasingly Strong Voice of Conservative Groups at the UN: Ordo Iuris at the Session of the Commission on the Status of Women
• Abortion and Surrogacy Violate Women’s Rights – Ordo Iuris Statement to the UN
• Ordo Iuris Joins Pro-Life Coalition at 69th Session of UN Commission on Status of Women

Source of cover photo: iStock