The vote at the council's offices in Geneva was not unexpected, because most of the council's members oppose focusing attention on specific countries accused of human rights violations.
At a briefing on March 27, Casey was asked about the council's vote. He expressed particular frustration that the Iran probe was ended.
"In the case of Iran, that decision is completely out of step with the views that the [UN] General Assembly expressed, which a couple months ago voted again to condemn the human rights practices in Iran," Casey said.
On March 6, the State Department issued its 2006 annual report on human rights practices around the world and accused the Iranian government of a variety of abuses, including suppressing political opposition, conducting unfair trials, and restricting the news media.
Uzbekistan, too, was criticized in the report, which accused it of political and judicial misconduct similar to Iran's. Relations between the United States and Uzbekistan have been cold since May 2005, when Uzbek security forces violently suppressed a demonstration in Andijon.
A 'Credible Body'?
Casey said the council's decision was "disappointing on several levels," but not just because it ended the investigations of the Iranian and Uzbek governments.
"I think, unfortunately, this is just another example of what we've seen of the Human Rights Council not behaving as a credible body, and as one that the international community more broadly can see as being able to actually carry out the function that it was intended to have," he said.
The United States has been so dubious of the council's ability to do its job that it didn't even try to get a seat on the panel, which has 47 members.
After today's briefing, Casey told Radio Farda the council appears to pay little attention to accusations of human rights abuses in virtually any country except Israel.
