Sort My College Summit 2025

United Nations Human Rights Council

Background Guide

Agenda:
Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Human Rights: Exploring ethical concerns
in AI surveillance, privacy and discrimination.

Letter from the Executive Board

Dear Prospective Members,

At the outset on behalf of the Executive Board, we extend a warm welcome to all of you and
congratulate you on being a part of the UNHRC simulation at JMC MUN’25.

We believe that ‘study guides’ are detrimental to the individual growth of the members since
they overlook a very important aspect of this activity, which is - Research. We are sure however
that this background guide gives you a perfect launching pad to start with your research. The
Background guide would be foundational and would give you a basic perspective on what the
executive board believes you should know before you commence your research. This being
clear, kindly do not limit your research to the areas highlighted, further but ensure that you
logically deduce and push your research to areas associated with the issues mentioned.

The objective of this background guide is to provide you with a ‘background’ of the issue at
hand. We are not looking for existing solutions, or strategies that would be a copy paste of what
countries you are representing have already stated; instead we seek effective and unique solution
from you, while knowing and understanding your impending practical and ideological
limitations.

Wishing you all a good luck and hoping to see you all at this conference discussing imperative
issues of international interest and we look forward to meeting you all.

Regards,

Executive Board

About United Nations Human Rights Council

The United Nations Human Rights Council is a United Nations body whose mission is to promote
and protect human rights around the world. The UNHRC has 47 members elected for staggered
three-year terms on a regional group basis.

The UNHRC investigates allegations of breaches of human rights in UN member states, and
addresses important thematic human rights issues such as freedom of association and assembly,
freedom of expression, freedom of belief and religion, women's rights, LGBT rights, and the rights
of racial and ethnic minorities.

The members of the General Assembly elect the members who occupy the UNHRC's 47 seats. The
term of each seat is three years, and no member may occupy a seat for more than two consecutive
terms. The seats are distributed among the UN's regional groups as follows: 13 for Africa, 13 for
Asia, six for Eastern Europe, eight for Latin America and the Caribbean (GRULAC), and seven
for the Western European and Others Group (WEOG). The previous CHR had a membership of
53 elected by the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) through a majority of those present
and voting.
The UNHRC holds regular sessions three times a year, in March, June, and September.

The UNHRC can decide at any time to hold a special session to address human rights violations
and emergencies, at the request of one-third of the member states.

What are the functions and powers of UNHRC?

The Human Rights Council meets for at least 10 weeks per year at the United Nations Office in
Geneva, Switzerland, in regular sessions usually taking place in March, June and September. The
Council can also convene urgent meetings on short notice to respond to emerging human rights
crises – 28 such special sessions were held thus far. The Council’s subsidiary bodies meet for
approximately 20 additional weeks each year. Since its 1st session in 2006, the Council’s agenda
has been expanding and its meeting time has more than doubled.

The Council can adopt texts with or without a recorded vote. To adopt a draft text by a vote, it
must enjoy the support of a majority of the members of the Council. Only Council members are
able to vote. The decisions of the Council are not legally binding. To date the Council adopted
over 1,750 texts to address a wide range of thematic and country-specific human rights issues.

The Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review (UPR) is a unique process which involves
a review of the human rights records of all 193 UN member States once every 4.5 years. The UPR
is one of the most innovative and powerful achievements of the Council designed to ensure equal
treatment for every country when their human rights situations are assessed. It provides the
opportunity for each State to declare what actions they have taken to improve the human rights
situation in their countries and to fulfil their human rights obligations, as well as the challenges
and constraints they are facing in so doing.

The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) is a unique human rights monitoring mechanism established
by the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in 2006 to assess the human rights
situation in all 193 UN member states. Conducted every four and a half years, the UPR provides a
platform for governments to report on their human rights progress, while other states, civil society
organizations, and UN agencies offer recommendations for improvement. This peer-review
process ensures that all countries, regardless of size or power, are held accountable for their human
rights commitments. The UPR covers a wide range of issues, including freedom of expression,
gender equality, LGBTQIA+ rights, and protection against discrimination and violence. One of its
key strengths is its inclusive nature, as it allows NGOs, human rights defenders, and marginalized
communities to present shadow reports, ensuring diverse perspectives are considered. After the
review, states are expected to voluntarily implement the recommendations, and their progress is
evaluated in subsequent cycles. The UPR has played a crucial role in strengthening human rights
policies, encouraging legal reforms, and fostering international cooperation to address human
rights challenges worldwide.
Kindly click the link below to know more about UNHRC
https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/HRC_booklet_EN.pdf

What are the basic and fundamental human rights?

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights sets out, for the first time, fundamental human rights
to be universally protected and has been translated into over 500 languages.

Drafted by representatives with different legal and cultural backgrounds from all regions of the
world, the Declaration was proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly in Paris on 10
December 1948 (General Assembly resolution 217 A) as a common standard of achievements for
all peoples and all nations.

The UDHR is not a treaty so it doesn't have any binding legal obligations. In the 70 years since its
announcement, the document has profoundly influenced the development of international human
rights law. Know more at:

https://unfoundation.org/blog/post/the-universal-declaration-of-human-rights-is-turning-75-
heres-what-you-need-to-know/?gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAiA5Ka9BhB5EiwA1ZVtvL-
GO62_T9MAu4wIeFModqZ4OxzqL1OpCw1E9rQQEpnDuZ_Fiy9mmxoCFSIQAvD_BwE

Brief on the agenda

The misuse of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in surveillance poses significant threats to the right to
privacy and often results in discriminatory practices. AI-powered surveillance tools—such as
facial recognition, biometric tracking, and predictive policing algorithms—allow for mass data
collection and monitoring, frequently conducted without the knowledge or consent of individuals.
This not only violates the fundamental right to privacy, as protected under international human
rights law, but also fosters an environment of constant surveillance that can chill free expression
and movement. Moreover, these AI systems are often trained on biased datasets, leading to
disproportionate targeting of marginalized communities.

Facial recognition technologies, for instance, have been shown to have higher error rates for people
of color and women, resulting in misidentification, wrongful surveillance, and arrests. Predictive
policing tools tend to reinforce existing prejudices by flagging minority neighborhoods as high-
risk areas, thereby entrenching racial and socioeconomic disparities. Such discriminatory
outcomes, combined with the opacity of AI systems, make it difficult for affected individuals to
seek accountability or redress. The growing integration of AI into surveillance infrastructures
underscores the urgent need for transparent legal frameworks, human rights-based impact
assessments, and independent oversight to ensure that these technologies do not undermine
fundamental rights or perpetuate inequality.
UNHRC and the Ethics involving use of AI

The UNHRC has consistently emphasized that the development, deployment, and use of AI must
be aligned with international human rights norms. It upholds that AI should not reinforce existing
inequalities or result in discrimination, surveillance abuse, or loss of privacy, particularly in
vulnerable populations.

A landmark contribution in this area was the 2021 report by former UN High Commissioner
Michelle Bachelet, which called for a moratorium on high-risk AI technologies like facial
recognition and predictive policing until robust safeguards are in place. The UNHRC emphasizes
the need for transparency, accountability, and human rights impact assessments in AI deployment.
It collaborates with other UN bodies and stakeholders to develop ethical frameworks and regularly
organizes thematic sessions to address risks posed by AI to civil liberties.

UNHRC involvement in avoiding abuse of Artificial Intelligence

The responsible and ethical use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) is essential to ensuring that the rapid
advancement of technology does not erode the fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals. As
a global body tasked with promoting and protecting human rights, the UNHRC recognizes that
while AI offers significant opportunities, it also poses serious risks—particularly when used
without adequate legal, ethical, and human rights safeguards.

The Council is deeply concerned about the potential for AI systems to reinforce existing patterns
of discrimination, enable unlawful surveillance, and limit access to justice or public services.
These risks are especially pronounced for marginalized communities, including racial and ethnic
minorities, refugees, and individuals living in conflict zones. The UNHRC thus stresses the
importance of a human rights-based approach to AI governance, where the design, development,
and deployment of AI technologies are subject to transparency, accountability, oversight, and
inclusivity.

To mitigate harm, the UNHRC advocates for the mandatory implementation of human rights
impact assessments before any AI system is put into use, particularly in critical domains like
policing, border management, welfare distribution, and judicial decision-making. It has supported
calls—such as those outlined in the 2021 OHCHR report on the right to privacy in the digital age—
for moratoriums on the use of high-risk AI technologies, including facial recognition and
predictive algorithms, until clear legal frameworks and effective accountability mechanisms are
established.

Moreover, the UNHRC plays a convening and normative role by organizing debates, expert panels,
and drafting resolutions that guide states and private actors toward responsible AI practices. It
encourages member states to integrate international human rights law into their national AI
strategies and to uphold commitments to equality, non-discrimination, and data protection.
Need for protection and re-enforcement of the rights of LGBTQIA+ Community

The rapid advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AI), particularly in the fields of surveillance
and data processing, has raised critical concerns about the protection of individual privacy and
the potential for abuse. AI-driven surveillance technologies—such as facial recognition,
biometric tracking, and predictive analytics—have the capacity to monitor individuals on an
unprecedented scale, often without their knowledge or consent. While these tools can enhance
public security, they also pose a serious threat to fundamental rights to privacy, freedom of
movement, and expression if left unchecked.

There is a growing need for robust safeguards to ensure that AI is not used as a tool for mass
surveillance, social profiling, or political repression. Without clear legal frameworks and
transparent oversight mechanisms, such technologies can enable arbitrary or discriminatory
practices, disproportionately targeting minority communities, activists, and vulnerable
populations. The lack of accountability and explainability in many AI systems further
complicates the ability of individuals to challenge decisions or seek redress for rights violations.

Reinforcement of privacy rights requires that states and developers adhere to international
human rights standards, including conducting human rights impact assessments before
deploying surveillance AI, ensuring data minimization and consent-based collection, and
offering effective remedies for abuses. Importantly, there must be independent oversight
bodies to monitor the use of such technologies and ensure transparency, proportionality, and
necessity in every application.

In essence, as AI becomes more embedded in governance and security systems, it is imperative

Case Studies to help understand the agenda

1. China’s Mass Surveillance in Xinjiang

Issue: Widespread use of AI-driven facial recognition and predictive policing.

• Details: In the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, the Chinese government has used
advanced AI systems for mass surveillance targeting the Uyghur Muslim population.
Technologies include facial recognition cameras, biometric data collection, and AI
algorithms to predict “pre-criminal” behavior.

• Legal Concern: This surveillance infrastructure reportedly led to arbitrary detentions and
human rights abuses, raising serious concerns under international law, particularly
violations of privacy, freedom of religion, and freedom from discrimination.
 • Response: UN bodies, including the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
(OHCHR), have condemned these practices, urging China to comply with international
human rights obligations.

2. Project Pegasus (Global)

Issue: Deployment of spyware against journalists, activists, and politicians.

• Details: The Pegasus spyware, developed by the Israeli company NSO Group, was
reportedly used by governments to surveil journalists, human rights defenders, and
opposition figures through their smartphones. While not AI in itself, it often worked
alongside AI-enabled pattern recognition for behavior analysis.

• Legal Concern: Violations of Article 17 of the ICCPR (Right to privacy), chilling effects
on freedom of expression and press, and abuse of surveillance tools without judicial
oversight.

• Response: The UN Special Rapporteurs called for a global moratorium on the sale and use
of such technologies until compliance with human rights norms is assured.

3. United Kingdom’s Use of Automated Facial Recognition (AFR) by Police

Issue: Deployment of AFR systems in public spaces without clear legal authority.

• Details: UK police forces used real-time facial recognition at public events, shopping
centres, and streets. The system matched faces against watchlists but was found to be
inaccurate and biased, especially against women and ethnic minorities.

• Legal Concern: In 2020, the UK Court of Appeal ruled the use of AFR by South Wales
Police unlawful, citing lack of adequate data protection, equality impact assessments, and
oversight.

• Significance: It set a legal precedent for the importance of proportionality, transparency,

4. India’s Aadhaar System and Data Privacy Concerns

Issue: Biometric identity system with AI-backed analytics.

• Details: India's Aadhaar program, the world’s largest biometric ID system, uses
fingerprints and iris scans for citizen identification. Critics argue that AI-backed data
processing raised concerns over privacy breaches, data misuse, and exclusion from welfare
due to algorithmic errors.
 • Legal Concern: The Indian Supreme Court in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India
(2017) upheld privacy as a fundamental right, leading to the introduction of data protection
guidelines, though enforcement remains weak.

• Significance: Showcases the risks of centralized biometric databases when paired with AI
and used without strong data protection laws.

5. USA’s Predictive Policing and Racial Bias

Issue: Use of AI to predict criminal activity based on historical crime data.

• Details: Cities like Chicago and Los Angeles used AI tools (e.g., PredPol) to forecast crime
hotspots and deploy resources accordingly. However, the training data reflected systemic
racial biases, leading to disproportionate policing of minority neighborhoods.

• Legal Concern: This practice raised concerns about due process, equal protection, and
discrimination, with limited transparency or recourse for those unfairly targeted.

• Outcome: Several departments suspended the use of these tools, citing ethical and legal
challenges.