Last week, the United Nations General Assembly elected 14 new countries to the Human Rights Council. The council is responsible “for promoting universal respect for the protection of all human rights.” Given this responsibility, the election of Saudi Arabia, China, Cuba and Russia is paradoxical. These countries are consistently in violation of international human rights standards, and their election is evidence of a broken system.

Upon electing members to the council, the General Assembly is instructed by its own resolution to consider “the contribution of candidates to the promotion and protection of human rights.” These words have not been put into practice. China has imprisoned the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize winner Liu Xiaobo for five years and is the world leader in executions. Saudi Arabia forbids female citizens from leaving their home without a man’s permission and refuses to convict rapists without four eyewitnesses. Cuba has the most intensive censorship in the western hemisphere. Russia practices severe discrimination against its LGBTQ community. Rather than protecting — let alone promoting — your human rights, these countries are actively dismantling them.

The election of candidates is organized in regional blocs that represent the global distribution of countries. Most of the seats are allocated to African and Asian states — countries with records of the most severe human rights violations. Moreover, those individuals elected to the council to represent these countries are political diplomats with a vested interest in concealing such violations — not independent experts. These factors explain why the vast majority of council members appear to be unwilling in the promotion of human rights in any meaningful way.

The composition of the council has actually created a bargaining culture in which oppressive regimes defend and praise their oppressive allies. Almost no members considered it necessary to raise concern over Saudi Arabia’s human rights record during its annual review in October. UN Watch reported that China actually praised Saudi Arabia during its review, knowing that the Saudis would return the favor the following day — evidence of an ineffective “mutual praise society.” This behavior is not uncommon, and it shows an intent to sustain the impunity the council is supposed to expose and end.

Evidently, the function of the council is not a humanitarian one. Its very constitution is what causes its political nature. Those who share the conviction that human rights law should be respected and enforced cannot look toward the council as a facilitator.

Rather, look to the oppressed. Those who mobilize against state-sponsored tyranny are beginning to assert an entitlement to the human rights, which they are being deprived. Only when their claims reach fever pitch will nations genuinely recognize the existence of such rights.

A version of this article appeared in the Tuesday, Nov. 19 print edition. Peter Keffer is a deputy opinion editor. Email him at [email protected].