You'll know, because this is the responsibility of your subcommittee, that the UN's record in the effective protection of human rights is mixed.
I have worked in the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and lived for many years in Geneva, and I've seen it very closely. I worked there with Louise Arbour at one point when she was high commissioner, so I've seen it close up and from a distance as someone who's lobbied it. I'd be the first to say it has many failings and to recognize those.
However, sometimes things work out, and in the case of Sri Lanka you have, for complicated reasons, the U.S., but not it alone, managing to build sufficient pressure to pass a resolution with 24 or 25 of the 47 members of the Human Rights Council voting in favour. Many abstained, but there were enough votes to get a reasonably decent resolution. It's not one of your name-and-shame resolution but one saying that there's a problem and that the government needs to address it. It has now done that twice. The votes may change in March, as there are new members on the council. That's why countries like Canada need to work harder. But I believe that experience suggests it has been a point of pressure. The government has gone to enormous lengths to avoid scrutiny in Geneva. They don't like this resolution; they feel they're being watched. So I think on this issue the UN is the place to work.