UNITED NATIONS, May 10 (OneWorld) - The world's leading rights advocacy groups have welcomed the results of Tuesday's elections at the United Nations that have led to the formation of a new international leadership to defend human rights.

The 47-member body was established in March this year after months-long diplomatic negotiations and discussions that represented a wide range of conflict of opinion among the 191 members of the UN General Assembly.

While many Western nations and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) wanted the new members of the Council to be elected on the basis of a two-thirds majority in the General Assembly, a large number of developing countries stood in unity to resist this idea.

Developing countries perceived this demand as an attempt to undermine their role in the Council and thus favored the idea that members should be elected on the basis of a simple majority vote from the General Assembly.

For months, the United States and its allies argued that a simple majority vote would pave the way for countries with poor human rights records to become members of the new Council. Such concerns were directed toward countries like Sudan, Cuba, China, and many others who served in the past as members of the much-criticized Human Rights Commission, but were seen as abusers of human rights.

The issue was finally resolved by a General Assembly resolution that required that a successful candidate must obtain at least 96 votes. Endorsed by a vast majority, the resolution also toughened the criteria for elections.

Despite their reservations about the role of certain nations elected to the Council, human rights groups say they hope that the new body will prove relatively more effective in protecting and promoting the cause of human rights than the Commission.

"It's a step in the right direction," said Kenneth Roth, director of New York-based Human Rights Watch, which wanted a number of countries to be kept out of the election for failing to protect human rights.

Last week, Human Rights Watch released a list of 11 countries described as perennial human rights violators who should not be allowed to run. They included Zimbabwe, Syria, North Korea, Libya, Nepal, Belarus, Burma, and Sudan.

While these nations decided not to run for elections, the United States, which had originally led the efforts to create a new Council, also chose to stay out of the process. Many believe that the U.S. decision was based on a fear that it would lose the election because of its own questionable human rights record.

The U.S. continues to face scathing criticism for its abuse of human rights at Abu Ghraib prison outside Baghdad and its military-run detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where terror suspects are being held. The U.S. government has also come under fire for its refusal to allow human rights experts to interview prisoners.

Though critical of its record, some human rights groups say the U.S. should have been part of the Council.

"Despite its troublesome behavior, I would rather have it as an engaged government," said Human Rights Watch's Roth, who seemed displeased with the fact that countries like Cuba, China, and Russia were elected as members of the Council.

"I would not mention any of the member states. I would want you though to look at the list of the countries that decided to run and the countries that decided not to run," Roth added.

For its part, Amnesty International urged new members with "a record of serious human rights violations," to improve their performance and fulfill the obligations to uphold the "highest standards" in the protection of human rights.

The group, however, said in a statement that it was pleased to note that all new members pledged to ratify human rights treaties and promised to invite UN experts to visit their countries to monitor human rights compliance.

In replacing the Commission, the Human Rights Council has the potential to be "significantly more effective," said Amnesty International, because it has a clear mandate to address all human rights situations, including gross and systematic violations.

The Council is likely to meet at least three times a year to address urgent human rights situations. The rules governing the Council's election require the world body to take account of members' human rights records and pledges.