Special Rapporteur (SR) on the human rights and fundamental freedoms situation of indigenous people, Rodolfo Stavenhagen

Human Rights Council, Sixth Resumed Session, 12^th and 13^th December 2007

Statement by the Special Rapporteur (SR) on the human rights and fundamental freedoms situation of indigenous people, Rodolfo Stavenhagen, and interactive dialogue

Mr Stavenhagen recalled the importance of the indigenous people’s cause, particularly in the year of the adoption by the GA of the Declaration on Rights of Indigenous People. Despite the efforts to raise awareness of these rights, the economic, social and human development of indigenous people is generally lower than the average. This is partly due to the fact that development policies have not tackled the structural causes of marginalisation of indigenous people because of lack of recognition, protection and human rights guarantees.

The SR’s report documents best practices of sustainable development project and he mentions the achievements of Brazil, India and Peru in the areas of education and health. Policies fostering empowerment and ownership of rights strengthen the organisation and capacity of indigenous people. Further, increasing access to authority position at local level has been granted in Bolivia, Ecuador, Chile, Mexico and Uganda, which had interesting consequences in the design of social services and priorities in public investment. A key issue among indigenous people’s rights is the recognition and protection of land and natural resources rights.

Relating to his visit in Bolivia, the SR noted the improvement made since the indigenous President Evo Morales came to power as well as the fact that the Declaration has status of internal law in Bolivia. However, he voiced concerns about the persistent phenomenon of racism and discrimination against women that he witnessed among civil servants and attitudes of political parties. Also, the SR was preoccupied by the bondage situation in some guaraní parts of the country.

Concerning his visit to the Philipines, the SR noted that the situation has remained unchanged since his last visit four years ago. Despite some positive developments, the lack of access to natural resources for the purpose of survival is still of important magnitude. Indigenous people face forced evictions due to the legal power that e.g. international companies have. Of particular concern are the increasing number of extra-judicial killings, torture cases, forced disappearances, illegal detention that are attributed to the police, the armed forces and paramilitary groups.

The SR also visited the hydroelectric project of La Parota, in Mexico, in company of the SR on adequate housing, concluding that, considering the size of the affected population in terms of displacement, the project did not comply with the human rights standards enshrined in international instruments ratified by Mexico.

Finally, the SR presents a general report on the situation of indigenous people in Asia, a region that he was allowed to visit only on one occasion. He notes that Asian indigenous are particularly marginalised and suffer from systematic human rights violations as consequence of land loss. Land loss is critical as it might trigger the disappearance of entire people. Moreover, this is exacerbated by extensive agriculture and deforestation due to State concessions or illegal uprooting. As indigenous people are often inextricably connected to their natural environment, they are especially vulnerable. However, they lack any means to defend their rights. Further, the SR notes that there is a systematic displacement practice in favour of infrastructure mega projects, especially dams.

He concludes reaffirming the weight of the Declaration of indigenous people’s rights.

Interactive Dialogue

Bolivia, as concerned country, described the national development plans that are currently undertaken and that include the indigenous people’s conclude and participation. Another point was the recognition of the pluralistic and diverse composition of the Bolivian society up to the level of the constitution.

China, India and other Asian Countries, strongly objected to the annex on the rights of indigenous people in Asia because of diverse reasons: first, objection was made to the assumption of indigenous peoples living in Asia. According to India, the entire population of Asia is indigenous and the acceptance of only a part of the population as indigenous is considered inaccetable. This comment is based on a part of the definition of indigenous people in the ILO Convention 169, disregarding further elements of the definition in other provisions. Secondly, China criticised that the information gathered by the Special Rapporteur was coming mainly from NGO sources, thereby going against the Code of Conduct that specifies that, in particular, information provided by the States concerned have to be considered.

Portugal, speaking on behalf of the European Union, asked about means to influence development policies in order to be sensitive to indigenous people’s interests and also about indicators to measure this feature of policies. A further concern was the recognition that environmental degradation is tantamount to a form of eviction and Portugal wanted to know how design policies to address these issues.

Cuba raised the point that development policies did not tackle the structural causes for the marginalization of indigenous people.

Mr Stavenhagen replied to the States’ comments, starting with the questions of the European Union. In his view, methodological development is required to find independent indicators for human rights of indigenous peoples in different countries related to different social, economic and cultural situations and related to environmental degradation. He confirmed the Canadian delegate’s concern that particular attention must be paid to indigenous in urban settings, as they run an even greater risk to all into “invisible” population

In reply to Peru’s concern about the implementation of the Declaration, the SR precised that in the long term, both NGOs, IOs, and public policies and justice have to include relevant provisions in their respective plans.

Further, the SR clarified that the subject of free previous and informed consent by indigenous peoples to development policies is in need o fan adequate methodology because often, the SR observed that consultations with indigenous were held but that the results were not fully understood, thereby missing a chance to meet the real needs of the indigenous peoples in question.

Concerning the intervention of the Asian Group, the SR claified that the study had been requested by the UN permanent forum on indigenous issues. Mr Stavenhager said that he was conscient about the debates around the definition of indigenous peoples and that it was not up to him to determine a definition. However, he pointed the attention to the fact that the very same Convention quoted by some Asian countries in the interactive dialogue in order to back their views included the element of auto-definition by the indigenous people. He justified himself saying that he was also to report on the groups that define themselves as indigenous.

Noelia Díaz

Enhancing respect for international humanitarian law (IHL): Exploring sanctions and the work of national IHL committees

Side Event to the 30th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent

27 November 2007

Information and practice sharing event related to the domestic implementation of IHL Treaties. Discussion of trends and challenges at national, regional and international levels.

Aim - examine the contribution of the national IHL Committees to the reform of national criminal justice systems in order to create the conditions needed to prosecute and punish war crimes and to incorporate provisions of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) into domestic law. Further, explore how national committees act as a catalyst for consultations, providing technical advice and recommendations on draft laws.

1) Ambassador Laura Thompson Chacón, Permanent Representative of Costa Rica in Geneva, reported on the experience of the national IHL committee of Costa Rica.

She explained that the main objective of the committee is to fight impunity and to raise awareness in the society. The IHL committee is composed of public institutions and NGOs and provides recommendations on IHL implementation measures (ex: law drafts). Further, it disseminates information to civil society and works closely together with universities. It also contributes to the debate on conflict-prevention and non-violence.

In its tasks, the national committee is creating regional and international links, in order to benefit from experience sharing with the committees of the neighbouring countries and to be able to act concertedly.

2) Mr. Xavier Philippe, Prof of public law, explained the findings of the interregional ICRC group of experts on sanctions.

The group of experts had as objective to clarify whether there is the need of a sanction other than criminal in order to achieve greater compliance with IHL. The conclusions are manifold and it should be kept in mind that sanctions have to be deterrent, which is achieved through visible and publicized justice.

Disciplinary sanctions (administrative acts) have the advantage to be expedient, to send an effective signal and therefore to be a more likely deterrent. Deterrence, according to the experts group, comes less from the severity of a sanction than from the predictability of the punishment. Predictability depends on the clarity of the rules and on the target groups’ knowledge about it.

However, and in particular from the victims’ point of view, disciplinary sanctions are not sufficient and should not replace criminal sanctions. Moreover, experts agreed that, beyond a punishment, the stigmatization of a criminal was of paramount importance. Open and public arrest and trial of the accused do have this stigmatizing effect.

Further, the speaker recalled the principles stating that gross violations of IHL imperatively have to trigger sanctions. He also revoked that states should condemn systems of “exceptional justice” during conflicts (e.g. “exceptional prisons”).

It was underlined that national justice had to incorporate IHL and that national legislation, even the constitution if needed, has to be modified for full implementation of IHL. Here, a link can be drawn to the establishment of national IHL committees. Reference was also made to the proportionality of the punishment and it was encouraged to take into consideration cultural and traditional aspects of the society in question, particularly when it comes to alternative, i.e. traditional tribunals.

The experts also considered the situations in which justice is to be made while the conflict is ongoing. In this respect, it is important to cover all the parties to the conflict in order to cover all the violations and the victims of all sides.

Regarding the victims’ roles, different situations have been recognized: victims might have one only advocate; or they might be in the centre of the process, treated individually with a view to reparations; or the situations might be a mix of the two. It is important, however, that the victims do not have too high expectations in order to avoid disappointments and ultimately revenge issues.

Transitional justice and its place have also been discussed. Agreement is that this is a complementary mechanism and that it should not substitute the criminal mechanisms. Especially in this context, the range of sanctions can go well beyond privation of liberty.

The group of experts also found that the impact of sanctions varies depending on whether the post-conflict society has just started a reconciliation process or whether it is already in an advanced stage of reconciliation.

Noelia Díaz

30th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement

The 30th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent addressed the humanitarian consequences of four main contemporary challenges: environmental degradation, including climate change; international migration; violence in urban settings; and emergent and recurrent diseases and other public health concerns.

General Debate

The general debate consisted of some 109 statements made by Governments and National Societies, and focused on the four main themes of the Conference and how they interact with each other.

On the question of climate change and environmental degradation, delegations emphasized the fact that climate change affects the poorest people in the poorest countries. They called on National Societies to raise awareness about environmental risks and strengthen disaster preparedness and risk reduction measures, in order to address the humanitarian consequences of climate change. National Societies requested that States devise comprehensive disaster response plans that use their capacity, as well as that of other similar organizations.

Concerning international migration, participants stressed that when considering this issue, underlying causes such as poverty, armed violence and conflict should be taken into account. They have also stated that National Societies have a duty to assist migrants regardless of their legal status, and the vulnerable status of women and children migrants was also pointed out.

With regard to urban violence, it was agreed by a number of delegations that such violence should be reduced and prevented. In particular, participants referred to concrete initiatives in order to reduce this, such as the 2006 Geneva Declaration on armed violence and development, or the important role that young people can play in this regard.

On the issue of health, several delegations expressed their concern about the growing impact of recurrent diseases, such as HIV, Malaria and Tuberculosis. They also agreed that the Red Cross and Red Crescent could take specific action to combat these epidemics, and so it was important to strengthen them.

In conclusion, all representatives shared the view that collaboration between Governments, National Societies, NGOs and other like-minded organizations was crucial to meet these challenges, and that there was an urgency to deal with these issues. Proposed solutions include preventive measures, public awareness, partnerships, promptness and preparedness.

Election of the members of the Standing Commission

Nine candidates were running for the five seats of the Standing Commission, two from Africa, two from the Americas, three from Asia and two from Europe. 324 delegations were present and voting, including 172 National Societies, 152 States, the International Federation and the ICRC. The absolute majority was established at 163 votes.

The results were as follows:

Elected:

Dr Massimo Barra,
Italian Red Cross . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .213
Dr Mohammed Al-Hadid,
Jordan National Red Crescent Society . . . . . . . . . . . 211
Mr Adama Diarra,
Mali Red Cross . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..187
Mr Steven E. Carr,
American Red Cross . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..182
Mr Eamon Courtenay,
Belize Red Cross Society . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .165

Not Elected:

Lady Jocelyn Keith,
New Zealand Red Cross . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .156
Dr Freddy Karup Pedersen,
Danish Red Cross . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .132
MrWilliam A. Eteki Mboumoua,
Cameroon Red Cross Society . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .110
Mr Tissa Manilal Abeywickrama,
Sri Lanka Red Cross Society . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83

Follow-up to previous conferences

Follow up of the Memorandum Of Understanding between Palestinian Red Crescent and Magen David Adom in Israel:

The text presented on the follow-up of the Memorandum of Understanding between the Palestinian Red Crescent and the MDA was unanimously welcomed by the conference and the report was adopted by consensus by all delegations. During the presentation, it was underlined that even if the MOU is not fully implemented, there is a strong spirit of cooperation between the actors involved. Considering the political context of the region, the members of the conference expressed their satisfaction and their hope for further development. In this perspective, it is interesting to stress that this encouraging view was shared by all the political actors engaged in the area, including Arab States, Arab Red Crescent Societies, Israel, the United States, the American Red Cross society and the European Union.

Overview of the pledges made at the 30th International Conference

340 individual and collective pledges were made for the period of 2008 to 2011, and beyond.

Concerning the main themes of the Conference:

On environmental degradation, representatives pledged to promote preparedness, risk reduction and management.

On urban violence, it was pledged to promote preventive measures, especially through education.

On health, delegations pledged to increase the scope of community-based help, as well as equal access to treatment.

Pledges were also made on other subjects, such as:

Restoring family links

Strengthening international humanitarian law mechanisms

Using IDRL Guidelines to review national legal framework

Reaffirming the role and nature of the ICRC and IFRC, as auxiliary and independent societies in the humanitarian field

Fighting the abuse of power

Also at the heart of pledges was the development of volunteer and youth centers to strengthen National Societies.

Resolutions adopted at the 30th International Conference

Were adopted on consensus all of the resolutions and declarations presented before the Conference, namely:

Draft Declaration: Together for humanity
Draft Resolution: Together for humanity
Draft Resolution: The specific nature of the Red Cross and Red Crescent movement in action and partnership and the role of national societies as auxiliaries to the public authorities in the humanitarian field
Draft Resolution: Reaffirmation and implementation of international humanitarian law
Draft Resolution: Adoption of the guidelines for the domestic facilitation and regulation of international disaster relief and initial recovery assistance


R. M.

Adequate Housing as a Component of the Right to an Adequate Standard of Living proposed by Germany and Finland (2nd draft).

Informal Consultations
28th November 2007

This Resolution is part of Item 3 of the 6th Human Rights Council: Promotion and Protection of all Human Rights, Civil, Political, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Including the Right to Development.

This was the second consultation since the draft resolution was proposed. Germany and Finland didn’t really present the draft resolution. They just commented on the several changes from draft 1 to draft 2 which were done at the request of the delegation at the first informal meeting in September. These changes are in bold on the text.

Comments made on the paragraphs:
PP5:
- Philippines strongly ask a reference to the Convention of Migrant Workers and on the Conventions of Disabled persons.
- Argentina, Brazil and Mexico totally agrees with this proposition and the latter adds that the word “Recalling” is not strong enough.
PP11:
- UK thinks that the sentence is too long and proposes to separate it in 2 parts, the bold and the un-bold part of the sentence. For the new second sentence he adds the following amendment at the beginning “And noting that it views are expressed” in general …in that way it will be clear that these are the views of the Council.
- Philippines, Algeria, Argentina, Mexico… support UK on this change.
OP3:
- India thinks it’s not appropriate to introduce “challenges caused by climate change and pollution” in this mandate. There are a lot of theories on this issue but we should let them to the specialist of climate. The concerns of the SR should be the consequences of the climate change, not the climate change itself.
- Mexico reminds that natural disaster have a link with housing.
- Belgium expresses his will to keep the reference on climate change, stating that it’s important.
OP4
op4a
- India is not comfortable with urging the states to give indicators.
- UK delegate informs that he doesn’t think that his capital would agree to be urged to develop indicators.
- Mexico on the contrary wants to keep this reference to the indicators.
op4g
- UK asks what is meant by “equal access to public housing programmes”? It is physical access to people with disabilities?
op4h
- Bangladesh thinks the issue of women is too often expressed in the text; it’s not a resolution on women. On these paragraph he asks why “especially those who faced violence”?
- Cuba proposes to change the mention of the word “women” by “all persons”. This amendment is agreed by all delegations.

OP5
op5a
- Mexico proposes to add at the end of the sentence: “in accordance with existing provision”
op5d
- Belgium proposes to qualify the assistance to make it more realistic.
op5f
- India asks why the Special Rapporteur should submit a report to the GA?
op5g
- India: the SR will already give a considerable contribution so he shouldn’t be the one to finalise the work.
- UK asks whether their will be consultations?
- Bangladesh proposes to change “finalise the” by “continue to”, that would be more neutral.

Answers by Germany and Finland
- PP5: answering to Mexico, the German’s delegate explained that his country has neither signed nor ratified both Conventions. The position of Germany is that they estimate that the Convention of Migrant Workers would attract illegal immigration. Thus, for the credibility, they are opposed to insert this Convention, but not opposed to the notion itself.
- OP3: Germany and Finland explained that they anticipated. They are sure that in the future the climate change will have more consequences.
- OP4a: they are aware that countries can not provide indicators if those have not been finalised yet.
- OP4g: Finland reminded that the “equal access to public housing programmes” was proposal from Mexico.
- OP4h: answering to Bangladesh, the chairs say that women are the one who faces bigger problem on housing rights and that the aim is to ensure these women a house if they are thrown away by males.
- OP5f: they estimated that the SR should submit a report to the GA because of the cruciality of the mandate.
- OP5g: the chairs reminded that this is already the case of the 2004 mandate and that Bangladesh proposal was interesting and that it would be considered for the next coming draft.


Ismaila Pedro FAYE

Resolution on Human Rights Voluntary Goals by Brazil

27th November

This was the 6th meeting on the Resolution proposed by Brazil who expects the text to be adopted on consensus in December during the 6th session of the Human Right Council and they will then start the intergovernmental consultations.

Introductory part:
Brazil is adopting a very flexible and broad language as many delegations insisted. Thus the last revised version is very different from the first presented text. The delegations are asked to work on a consensus basis.
Two new operative paragraphs have been added (former OP4 and OP5 have been deleted):
- OP4 at the request of several delegates which calls for OHCHR.
- OP5 which adapts a certain time framework for intergovernmental process.
The Human Right goals should be ideally launch by 10th December 2008 for the 60th anniversary of the UDHR.
The main concerns have been achieved:
- Call the attention of OHCHR.
- Achieve concrete goals and steps in further integration of human rights process.
The delegate of Brazil ended his introduction by thanking all his homologues for their patience and interest on the issue and then opened the floor.

Comments of the delegations paragraph by paragraph: Preamble Paragraphs then Operative Paragraphs (those concerned by the comments):

PP4:
- only the Federation of Russia expressed comments on that PP, stating the irrelevance
of optional protocols.

PP5:
- Philippines proposed to move this paragraph to PP1 since on of the aim of the
Resolution is to celebrate the 60th anniversary of UDHR.

PP6:
- Russia asked whether the mention of the “working group” on which was kept on the
text was an error, and almost all the delegations mentioned it.
- Italy on behalf of European Union suggested to separate the last part of the last
sentence and to have another paragraph which would read like follows: Recalling that all HR are universal, indivisible, interdependent and mutually reinforcing.
- Cuba, Argentina (co-sponsor) agreed on having another paragraph.

PP7:
- Cuba proposed to add at the end of the sentence “protection of “all” human rights;”
and it was supported by Philippines and Mexico.

PP8:
- Mexico proposed to delete the words “totally or partially” judging them not necessary.

OP1:
- Russia, about the new formulation, “Open-ended Intergovernmental consultations”
informed that it would check with its capital because it’s not clear with the Russian delegation of Geneva.
- Ecuador (co-sponsor) responding to Russia reminded that the idea of changing the
“working group” into a “open-ended Intergovernmental consultations ” had been brought by several delegations during the last discussion on the Resolution which Russia missed.
- Bangladesh asked whether the consultation would be formal or informal as it is not a
working group anymore. What is the legal status of these open-ended Intergovernmental consultations?
- Holly-see asked the same question.

OP2:
- Russian delegate says his delegation is against the exhaustive list of the paragraph
which can prejudice the result of the work.

ii:
-Italy (EU) proposed to delete “in each country, were they do not exist” and add “and implementation”.
- Cuba proposed a different version: delete the equal terms and add “where necessary”
- Philippines supported this amendment.
- Mexico proposed another version: keep the text as it and add …were they do not exist
“implementation”of national HR program.

v: - Italy (EU) and UK didn’t agree with the enumeration of the rights and explained that on the basis of non enumeration one has delete the mention of torture in the last version on OP2 iii.
- Bangladesh also thought one should single out any rights and thus proposed to delete
the paragraph and to add at the and of OP2ii “and Durban Plan of Action” that integrates all the rights mentioned by OP2v.
- Mexico strongly supported the retention of this paragraph and expressed herself
several times on this issue (after all the request for deletion) reminding that the wording comes from the Durban Declaration. It is very important and useful to have these goals at a national level
- Argentina (co-sponsor) also didn’t see the need to mention the Durban Declaration.
- Canada brought specific information saying that the correct wording of the Durban
Declaration reads as follows: … to eliminate discrimination of any kind such as race, color, sex…and not “…based on race…”

OP3: - Russia would rather use “Calls” instead of “welcomes”.
- Italy (EU) suggested a more explicit reference of the civil society and the NGOs.
- Argentina was against and explained that it wasn’t needed as they were obviously
taken into account in the rules of procedure of HRC but informed that it is flexible on this issue.
- Mexico proposed to change “Welcomes” by “Invites”.

OP5: - Italy (EU) wanted to delete the whole paragraph stressing that this is valuable if one still had a working group.
- Ecuador (co-sponsor) didn’t agree on deleting this paragraph.
- Philippines proposed to change the word “Welcomes” by “Requests” and to add …to
be presented “formally”to the HRC…and is joined by Mexico for both proposals.
- Mexico joined by Philippines for both proposals and added that since one already talks
about “a consensual basis” on OP1, it should be deleted from OP5 as to avoid redundancy.

Answers and final comments by Brazil:
Speaking about the Intergovernmental consultations, Brazil originally wanted to have a working group, but for the sake of consensus, and after the request of several delegations, they opted for open-ended Intergovernmental consultations. This Intergovernmental process is not the end but the mean to achieve success on establishing the respect of HR goals. Brazil took a step back in the nature of the Intergovernmental process but the result should remain the same. As for the legal status, the delegate admitted he could not answer that question.
A co-sponsors meeting will be scheduled and other delegations are invited to take part.

Ismaila Pedro FAYE

Asian Group: HRC President briefing with regional groups – 22nd November 2007

The meeting was deemed highly necessary upon the request of the President of the Council. Its purpose is to update delegations on the President’s visit to New York, and preparation of resumed session of the Council.

During his visit to New York, the President of the Council had meetings with around 50 delegations, and all of them deposited high expectations on the council, even if occasionally having some skepticism. During the meetings, the President insisted inter alia on advocating the need of resources by the HRC.

Taken into account all the meetings in New York, the president was able to provide only one example of the Romania’s Mission, illustrating a very good knowledge of the HRC's activities. To his surprise, the Council is not as well-known in New York as it would have been expected. It must definitely become more visible. For instance, the majority of the missions in New York did not even know that live broadcast of the council meetings is available via internet.

The president reported that he had also meetings with countries that do not have missions in Geneva. These were essentially focused on the UPR.


November and December meetings

Sessions between 10th and 14th December will be inter alia devoted to Prof. Pinero report on Myanmar as well as to the report of Working Group on Darfur.

10th December session shall be dedicated to the Human Rights day, 60th Anniversary of the UDHR.

On 21st November, a meeting will take place to proceed to the final rehearsal of the troika selection system.


April meetings

Universal Periodic review will take place for the first session.
Two other issues will be at stake:

1. Election of the Members of the Advisory Committee ( notification of the candidates);
   
2. Selection and nomination of the new membership’s holders.
   

Remarks:

Pakistan appreciated endeavors of the president in New York, particularly his meetings with some Caribbean and Pacific States’ representatives which do not have missions in Geneva, and his careful attention on updating the regional groups in Geneva with all necessary information. Additionally, Pakistan raised queries in regard to the expectations arising from the Optional Protocol as well as the program of the Council altogether.

Saudi Arabia showed some degree of concern in respect of the UPR, the review process per se, articulation and improvement; and contended that troika system might need more clarification, particularly with regard to the way the countries are to respond to their selection as a rapporteur. In conclusion, Saudi Arabia’s delegate did not feel comfortable with the reaction in New York to the HRC’s activity and engagement.

India noticed that in the note on the Troika Selection System submitted by the Secretariat there is a particularly confusing point pertaining to the way in which the possibility of excuse from being a rapporteur should operate. Is it generally recognized that a country will have 24 hours period to pronounce itself on the selection which will take place on the 26th November.

Bahrain asserted that the institution-building is clear, but pointed out to the concern of whether there will be only one joint report of the three rapporteurs assigned for the UPR of one specific State, or whether there will be three different reports. Bahrain’s delegate declared that no information was available on the priority attributed to the States who will end the session in summer 2008.

Bangladesh underlined the fact that the complexity of the relationship between Council and 3rd Committee will remain in the course of upcoming years. Moreover, Bangladesh raised a very pertinent point concerning the time framework for the troika to collect and send questions to the states, in particular wondering whether this is supposed to take place after or before the review.

In his final remarks, the President encouraged the delegates due to the successful progress of the Council, its specificity in comparison with the 3rd Committee and its higher degree of effectiveness. According to him, colleagues in New York appreciated very much endeavors of the Council. He noticed in addition that 6 mandates will be reviewed in December.

On Monday, 26th of November, Troikas will be officially drawn. States will have until Wednesday 28th to pronounce themselves on the selection. Furthermore, the President stated that it does not make sense to have discussion on determination of the level of rapporteurs, their selection should be left to the appreciation of the States, whereas role and limits of operability are already well established within a system. Troikas will be elected only for this membership of the council. In conclusion, the President showed his support to the query presented by Bangladesh regarding the time framework for the questions, which should be discussed in due course.

Vladyslav Lanovoy

Human Rights Council – 16th November 2007

The meeting was dedicated to the presentation of a computerized system of troika selection, though still with some technical problems. The president of the counsel assured the members that the technicalities will be figured out before the next session.

Brief analysis on the troika system:

Troika System is a selection mechanism of the rapporteurs for the Universal Periodic Review, which is envisaged by the HRC to assess compliance of each Member State with the respective human rights obligations. Each Member State is to be assessed by 3 rapporteurs coming from 3 different countries and belonging to distinct regional groups. Troika selection system is deemed to provide for a democratic, geographically proportionate and independent Universal Periodic Review.
Troikas will be composed of Members of the Council only. In order to ensure equitable geographic distribution, each Member State should only be a member of three troikas, with the exception of three Member States that may serve a fourth time (since there are 47 members of the Council and 48 countries will have to be reviewed every year).
The setting up of troikas is a work in progress and a public meeting will take place on 26^th November session to select officially the troikas for the first review cycle.

The course of discussion:

Pakistan rose the point of concern on how many times can a country refuse to be assigned as a rapporteur for the Review mechanism. A maximum of three times can a State be considered as a rapporteur for troika mechanism. Any State has nevertheless a prerogative to be excused from being a rapporteur, but it can only express such a refusal once.

China advised to send notice to all member-states, instead of only coordinating countries. It also believes that a State needs at least 24 hours period so that to be able to submit a refusal to be rapporteur.

Canada stressed that it won’t exercise any sort of opting-out from the rapporteur’s selection and strongly encouraged other members to follow the same course of action.

The United Kingdom drew attention to the fact that once having 16 troikas, there is an additional member at each session. A flaw lies in the fact that there 47 State-members and 48 are needed for troika mechanism. The UK strongly envisaged the proposal of 24 hours to be given for each State to reply to its assignment as a rapporteur, especially taken into account very small delegations which are not even present in Geneva, and which do not have possibility to get immediately in touch with the capital.

Thailand expressed a concern regarding the fact that some small countries may not have capacity to be rapporteur three times in the same session.

The meeting stands adjourned till November 23rd.

Vladyslav Lanovoy

Project Resolution on Human Rights Goals

Informal Consultations
Submitted by Brazil
Timor-Leste is co-sponsor.

The aims of the Resolution are to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the UDHR, to give a substantive contribution to the celebration of the anniversary and not just celebrate social and cultural events and not to redefine the obligations.

Two main issues where at stake during the meeting. The one of the preamble paragraph 6 and the most discussed issue was the one of the Intergovernmental Working Group.

Brazil said it totally agrees to introduce the references not only to MERCOSUR but also the other regions that are willing to be referred. The delegate is just waiting to have a correct language.

As for the IWG, Italy taking the floor on behalf of the EU stated that they appreciate the initiative of Brazil, but they can not support the text as it is. One has to find possible alternatives:
- the goals should be elaborated directly by states through national governments,
- more active role of the High Commissioner Office. OHCHR should collect information given by the States.
- process where internationally recognized people would play an important role.
EU is also concern by the outcome of the process and stresses out two aspects:
- the concept of goals must not weaken existing obligations or create new instruments
- should have a precise list of issues which should be singled out by states.

India wonders how will the IWG would function? Will it set a frame for universal ratification and for the creation of national institution as it is mentioned in operative paragraph 2 ii? The Indian delegate ended his intervention by reminding that if one adds a scope like Italy suggested on behalf of EU, the outcome will therefore be different, thus discussion re-opened.

Bangladesh expressed the same matters on the IWG and pointed out the fact that the capacity of each country is different from one to another.

Pakistan reminded that the core human rights international instruments (7) mentioned in OP2i already have a their own Committee for ratification.

Ethiopia then joined by the above mentioned countries think that the use of the terms voluntary goals implies that the countries are not doing enough. According to him, one should focus on the socio-eco and cultural rights. Deplores that most of the elements treated in OP2 are already been carried on by existing mechanisms.

Mexico is not against the content of OP2 per say, but against the word goals and proposes to change with another language like score or strategy.

Ecuador proposes to have another co-sponsor meeting, and it has been agreed by all the member States. The date of the meeting has not been chosen but one meeting was already scheduled for November 27th.

Ismaila Pedro FAYE

Conference of the Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF)

Thursday 1th November.

The presentation was made by Mr. Rashid Khalikov, Director of OCHA (Office for the Coordination for Humanitarian Affairs) New York.

He first pointed out the amount expected by the CERF this year, which is 380 millions US dollars of witch they have already received 312. In 2006 the CERF have received 300 millions. The expectancy for 2008 his much higher: 450 US $.

He recalled that the CERF includes a grant element based on voluntary contributions by the Governments and private sectors such as corporations, individuals and NGOs. The CERF was approved by consensus by the UN General Assembly in 2005.

The presentation was then followed by several data:
- Loan components in 2007: FAO 24%, UNICEF 37%, UNDP 7%, WFP 25%, DPKO/ONUMAS 7% ...
- Grant allocation per continent: Africa 71,1% (mainly Congo, Somalia, Mozambique), Asia 22,4% (included East Timor), Latin and Central American Countries 5,9%.
- Funds committed in 2006: - under-funded: 75 million US $, Rapid response: 140 million US $.
- Funds committed in 2007: - under-funded: 190 million US $, Rapid response: 200 millions US $.

In 2007, CERF have registered 13 flash appeals and of them were related to climate change except for Peru. Mozambique is the country who received the biggest amount 29% of the flash appeal.

The Interim Independent Review Recommendations:
- clarify the scope of the life-saving criteria for the CERF.
- continue initiatives to strengthen the RC/HCs.
- Clarify the relationship between CERF and humanitarian agenda

The Advisory Group Recommendations:
- improve partnerships.
- Support HC strengthening.
- Improve speed of disbursement throughout the process.
- Reduce transaction cost.
- Improve accountability.

In conclusion Mr. Khalikov informed that their will be a high level conference in December.

Ms. Sharon Russo, the Chair person gave the floor.

Ireland asked how long it takes when a disaster occurs for the funds to be available. The director of OCHA answered that it ranges from 1 week to 20 days.

Turkey wanted to know what can be done to bring more donors: 2 or 3 diplomatic briefings, reach the regional group like G77.

Switzerland asked what was the amount coming from the private sector: 121.021 US $ from the private donations trough the UN. The CERF has identified approximately 10 individuals in the private sector marketing strategy and is working on possible message by Medias.

Finally Peru asked how they estimate the priorities when they don’t manage to receive all the necessary flash appeal: CERF works with the local authorities and national Governments.

Ismaila Pedro FAYE

Human Council 6th Session, Adoption of Resolutions and Draft decision

Friday 28th September
(in red: Resolutions co-sponsored by Timor Leste)

Item 1, 5 and 6
A/HRC/6/L.24 Organizational and Procedural Matters Human Right Bodies and Mechanism Universal Periodic Review: draft submitted by the President: Adopted on consensus

Item 3: Promotion and Protection of all Human Right, Civil, Political, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Including the Right to Development

A/HRC/6/L.1 Protection of Cultural Rights and Property in Situations of Armed Conflict, Submitted by Azerbaijan: Adopted on consensus
A/HRC/6/L.5/Rev .1 Mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Right to Food, Submitted by Cuba: Adopted on consensus

A/HRC/6/L.6 Human Right and International Solidarity, Submitted by Cuba:
Adopted with Vote: EU member States of the Council don’t support the mandate and vote against: YES: 34, NO: 12, Abst: 1.

A/HRC/6/L.7 Human Rights and Unilateral Coercive Measures, Submitted by Cuba (NAM): Adopted with Vote: Canada’s Request: YES: 34, NO: 11, Abst: 2

A/HRC/6/L.13/Rev1 Human Rights and Equitable access to Safe Drinking Water and Sanitation, Submitted by Germany and Spain: Adopted on consensus

A/HRC/6/L.14 Prevention of Genocide, Submitted by Armenia: Adopted on consensus

A/HRC/6/L.15 Elimination of all Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination based on Religion or Belief, Submitted by Portugal: deferred for the next Session

A/HRC/6/L.22 The 20ieth Anniversary of the Entry Into Force of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Submitted by the President: Adopted on consensus

A/HRC/6/L.25 Development of Public Information Activities in the Field of Human Right, Including the World Public Information Campaign on Human Rights, Submitted by Italy: Adopted on consensus

A/HRC/6/L.26 Human Rights and Indigenous Peoples: Mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Indigenous People, Submitted by Guatemala: Adopted on consensus

A/HRC/6/L.30 Arbitrary Detention, Submitted by France: postponed


A/HRC/6/L.31/Rev1 United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Educations and Training, Submitted by Switzerland and Morocco: Adopted on consensus

A/HRC/6/L.33 Protection of Cultural Heritage as an Important Component of the Promotion and Protection of Cultural Rights, Submitted by Armenia: Adopted on consensus

A/HRC/6/L.36 Creation of a Working Group to Elaborate a Set of Human Rights Voluntary Goals to be Launched on the Occasion of the Celebration of the Sixtieth Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Submitted by Brazil: Deferred at the request of all the co-sponsors to the resume session of December


Item 5: Human Rights Bodies Mechanisms

A/HRC/6/L.17/Rev.1 The Social Forum, Submitted by Cuba: Adopted on consensus

A/HRC/6/L.23 Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Slavery, Submitted by UK: Adopted on consensus

A/HRC/6/L.34 Forum on Minority Issues, Submitted by Austria: Adopted on consensus

A/HRC/6/L.35 Informal Meeting to Discuss the Most Appropriate Mechanisms to Continue the Work of the Working Group on Indigenous People, Submitted by Bolivia: Adopted on consensus


Item 6: Universal Periodic Review

A/HRC/6/L.12/Rev.1 Establishment of Funds for the Universal Periodic Review Mechanism of the Human Rights Council, Submitted by Egypt (African Group): Adopted on consensus


Item 7: Human Rights Situation in Palestine and Other Occupied Arab Territories,

A/HRC/6/L.2 Human Rights Situation in Palestine and Other Occupied Arab Territories: Follow-up to Human Rights Council Resolutions S-1/1 and S-3/1, Submitted by Palestine: Adopted on consensus

A/HRC/6/L.4 Religious and Cultural Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Including East Jerusalem, Submitted by Palestine: Adopted with Vote Submitted by Canada: YES: 31, NO: 1, Abst: 15


Item 8: Follow-Up to the Implementation of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action
A/HRC/6/L.18 Regional Arrangements for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, Submitted by Belgium, Armenia, Mexico, Senegal: Adopted on consensus

A/HRC/6/L.32 Integrating the Human Rights of Women and a Gender Perspective Throughout the United Nations System, Submitted by Chile: To be Considered at the Session of December


Item 9: Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Forms of Intolerance: Follow-Up to and Implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action

P/C 18 Report of the Preparatory Committee, Adopted on consensus

A/HRC/6/L.8/Rev.1 Elaboration of International Complementary Standards to the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, Submitted by Egypt (African Group): Adopted with Vote requested by EU: YES: 32, NO: 10, Abst: 4

A/HRC/6/L.9/Rev1 From Rhetoric to Reality: A Global Call For Concrete Action Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, Submitted by Egypt (African Group): Adopted with Vote requested by EU: YES: 28, NO: 13, Abst: 5

A/HRC/6/L.27 Preparations for the Durban Review Conference, Submitted by Egypt (African Group): Adopted with Vote requested by EU: YES: 33, NO: 10, Abst: 3


Item 10: Technical Assistance and Capacity-Building

A/HRC/6/L.16 World Programme for Human Rights Education, Submitted by Costa Rica: Adopted on consensus

A/HRC/6/L.21 Regional Cooperation for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights in the Asia-Pacific Region, Submitted by Indonesia, Adopted on consensus


Ismaila Pedro FAYE

Human Rights Council, 6th Session

13th September 2007

The programme of the day was dealing with the 3rd item of the 6th session of the Human Right Council: reports of SP and ID. The special rapporteurs where Mrs Asma Jahangir for Freedom of Religion or Belief and Mr. Mohamed R. Rizki for Human Rights and International Solidarity.

The special rapporteurs opened the session by summerasing briefly their annual reports. Each person present was given a copy of the speeches.

Then several country took the floor to give their comments. They all thanked the special rapporteurs for their work and added some comments. As for the report on freedom of religion and belief, they all agree on the fact that the states should eradicate intolerance and discrimination based upon religions and believes.

- India agreed with the general lines of the report of Mrs. Jahangir. The representative added that the implementation of legislatives acts against intolerance towards minority religious groups remains far from been done in some parts of the world. One think he deplores about the report is the link between the freedom of religion and belief and the freedom of expression.
- Pakistan talking on behalf of the OIC added that freedom of religion and belief should be taken entirely as a right and thus be putted at the same level as the other Human Rights.
- Indonesia asked for clarification about that link made by the special rapporteur not denying the good quality of the report.
- Azerbaijan agreed with the general lines of the report and appreciated the Pakistanis statement. The representative insisted on the fact that states should ensure the protection of the victim but also ensure that they prosecute the authors of intolerance towards religious minority groups.

One can realise that this link between freedom of religion and freedom of expression stated in paragraph 38 of the report had been pointed out only by Muslim countries.

- On the contrary Norway thinks they can’t be freedom of religion without freedom of expression and “vis vers ça” .The representative was ok with the link between freedom of belief and religion and other Human Rights.
- Portugal speaking on behalf of the European Union congratulated the Rapporteur for her work and asked several questions such as: What kind of measures that the states should take to avoid intolerance towards religion and belief? What can be done to protect the victims? How do states might better honour the positive obligations toward these victims?
- Belgium speaker aligned his self to the speech of Portugal, and asked how should the states emphasize the need for dialogue between believers and none believers?
- The Canadian speaker asked how his country could help in the national and international improvement of the tolerance on religion and belief.
- In this regard, Netherlands and Bangladesh asked the special rapporteur to indicate a country that has adopted a legislation to be taken as an example.
- Philippines say they fully endorse the statement of the paragraph 52 of the report talking about “Inter-religious and intra-religious dialogue” “which” is vital for the prevention of conflicts”. And added that there is much more to be done. They are joined by Australia and Bangladesh.
- Spain speaker expressed his self saying he totally agrees with paragraph 29 stating that prison authorities should allow prisoners to practice their religion…
- Russian Federation aligned her self with that statement and reminded that extremist groups give a different interpretation of religion and that some create pseudo religions.
- Association of World Education NGO pointed out the fact that nor the report neither any legal instrument defines “defamation of religion”.

Mrs. Asma Jahangir special rapporteur for the freedom of religion and belief responded quickly to the several representatives and thanked them for their appreciations. In response to Portugal she added that each victim group is different from another (women, refugees, immigrants, prisoners…) so one should have different ways of protection.

The report on Human Rights and International Solidarity didn’t received that many comments even thought the work of special rapporteur, Mr. Rizki had been fully welcomed and appreciated.

- Indonesia commented that International solidarity will serve to sustain globalisation on developing country.
- Bangladesh fully agreed with the special rapporteur who stated that International Solidarity was not an option but an obligation and added that the countries should be transparent on the international founding and economic issues.
- Tunisia took the floor to say he totally agree with paragraph 12 (States parties has the obligation…) of the report and asked how the states should ensure that recommendation.


Ismaila Pedro FAYE

Human Rights Council, 6th Session, Statement by Mrs. Louise Arbour, High Commissioner

The Session presided by Mr. Doru Romulus Costea, President of the Council, began by a speech from the High Commissioner, Mrs. Louise Arbour. Every attendant was given a copy of the speech. Then several delegates presented their observations.

- Many representatives commented on the UPR, such as Egypt talking on behalf of the African Group. The Egyptian representative said the success of UPR will participate on the success of the office of the High Commissioner. Korea added that the success of the Council is a “raison d’être”. Egypt deplores that the African Group wasn’t aware of any matter of establishing regional offices.

-Pakistan on behalf of the OIC argued that the High Commissioner office should discuss with the member states before taking a decision to open an office in a country. The representative asked for the clarity of the High Commissioner and for the coordination of the actions of the states, civil society and the individuals. They asked what where the modalities of Mrs. Arbour support proposal for the preparation of the review for developing countries.

-Portugal on behalf of the European Union said he supported the nomination of Mrs. L. Arbour office and welcomes the cooperation between the High Commissioner and Colombia, Congo despite the action of police and the army and Burundi, but deplores the actual situation of the Human Rights in Zimbabwe.

-About the UPR, Peru shows his satisfaction to be one of the first to be reviewed and encourages the presence of the High Commission in the Latin-American region.

-India exhorted the High Commissioner to delay the UPR after march so that it would be more productive.

-Canada on the other hand wants the review of countries to began as scheduled and also ask Zimbabwe and Congo to respect the Human Rights and the international laws.

-Netherland also wants the UPR to be held on February as scheduled, such as Switzerland, Nicaragua and Brazil. The latter commented that Human Rights can’t be effective without cultural diversity.

-Sri Lanka and other states like Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nigeria… asked the High Commissioner to postpone the UPR for march or even april. They stated that it would be difficult for developing countries to be ready. Sri Lanka also added a critic on the NGO’s warning the High Commissioner about the “pressure of the NGOs”.

-As for the criteria for the election of the members of the advisory group, Mexico hopes a text would be approved at the end of the session and Bolivia proposes that the criteria be broad so that formal Minister can be candidates.

Ismaila Pedro FAYE

Human Rights Council 6th Session
Report on the Statement by the High Commissioner, Mrs. Louise Arbour

The Session presided by Mr. Doru Romulus Costea, President of the Council, began by a speech from the High Commissioner, Mrs. Louise Arbour. Every attendant was given a copy of the speech. Then several delegates presented their observations.

- Many representatives commented on the UPR, such as Egypt talking on behalf of the African Group. The Egyptian representative said the success of UPR will participate on the success of the office of the High Commissioner. Korea added that the success of the Council is a “raison d’être”. Egypt deplores that the African Group wasn’t aware of any matter of establishing regional offices.

-Pakistan on behalf of the OIC argued that the High Commissioner office should discuss with the member states before taking a decision to open an office in a country. The representative asked for the clarity of the High Commissioner and for the coordination of the actions of the states, civil society and the individuals. They asked what where the modalities of Mrs. Arbour support proposal for the preparation of the review for developing countries.

-Portugal on behalf of the European Union said he supported the nomination of Mrs. L. Arbour office and welcomes the cooperation between the High Commissioner and Colombia, Congo despite the action of police and the army and Burundi, but deplores the actual situation of the Human Rights in Zimbabwe.

-About the UPR, Peru shows his satisfaction to be one of the first to be reviewed and encourages the presence of the High Commission in the Latin-American region.

-India exhorted the High Commissioner to delay the UPR after march so that it would be more productive.

-Canada on the other hand wants the review of countries to began as scheduled and also ask Zimbabwe and Congo to respect the Human Rights and the international laws.

-Netherland also wants the UPR to be held on February as scheduled, such as Switzerland, Nicaragua and Brazil. The latter commented that Human Rights can’t be effective without cultural diversity.

-Sri Lanka and other states like Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nigeria… asked the High Commissioner to postpone the UPR for march or even april. They stated that it would be difficult for developing countries to be ready. Sri Lanka also added a critic on the NGO’s warning the High Commissioner about the “pressure of the NGOs”.

-As for the criteria for the election of the members of the advisory group, Mexico hopes a text would be approved at the end of the session and Bolivia proposes that the criteria be broad so that formal Minister can be candidates.

IPF

Human Rights Council, 6th session, 13^th September 2007

The programme of the day was dealing with the 3^rd item of the 6^th session of the Human Right Council: reports of SP and ID. The special rapporteurs where Mrs Asma Jahangir for Freedom of Religion or Belief and Mr. Mohamed R. Rizki for Human Rights and International Solidarity.

The special rapporteurs opened the session by summerasing briefly their annual reports. Each person present was given a copy of the speeches.

Then several country took the floor to give their comments. They all thanked the special rapporteurs for their work and added some comments. As for the report on freedom of religion and belief, they all agree on the fact that the states should eradicate intolerance and discrimination based upon religions and believes.

- India agreed with the general lines of the report of Mrs. Jahangir. The representative added that the implementation of legislatives acts against intolerance towards minority religious groups remains far from been done in some parts of the world. One think he deplores about the report is the link between the freedom of religion and belief and the freedom of expression.

- Pakistan talking on behalf of the OIC added that freedom of religion and belief should be taken entirely as a right and thus be putted at the same level as the other Human Rights.

- Indonesia asked for clarification about that link made by the special rapporteur not denying the good quality of the report.

- Azerbaijan agreed with the general lines of the report and appreciated the Pakistanis statement. The representative insisted on the fact that states should ensure the protection of the victim but also ensure that they prosecute the authors of intolerance towards religious minority groups.

One can realise that this link between freedom of religion and freedom of expression stated in paragraph 38 of the report had been pointed out only by Muslim countries.

- On the contrary Norway thinks they can’t be freedom of religion without freedom of expression and “vis vers ça” .The representative was ok with the link between freedom of belief and religion and other Human Rights.

- Portugal speaking on behalf of the European Union congratulated the Rapporteur for her work and asked several questions such as: What kind of measures that the states should take to avoid intolerance towards religion and belief? What can be done to protect the victims? How do states might better honour the positive obligations toward these victims?

- Belgium speaker aligned his self to the speech of Portugal, and asked how should the states emphasize the need for dialogue between believers and none believers?

- The Canadian speaker asked how his country could help in the national and international improvement of the tolerance on religion and belief.

- In this regard, Netherlands and Bangladesh asked the special rapporteur to indicate a country that has adopted a legislation to be taken as an example.

- Philippines say they fully endorse the statement of the paragraph 52 of the report talking about “Inter-religious and intra-religious dialogue” “which” is vital for the prevention of conflicts”. And added that there is much more to be done. They are joined by Australia and Bangladesh.

- Spain speaker expressed his self saying he totally agrees with paragraph 29 stating that prison authorities should allow prisoners to practice their religion…

- Russian Federation aligned her self with that statement and reminded that extremist groups give a different interpretation of religion and that some create pseudo religions.

- Association of World Education NGO pointed out the fact that nor the report neither any legal instrument defines “defamation of religion”.

Mrs. Asma Jahangir special rapporteur for the freedom of religion and belief responded quickly to the several representatives and thanked them for their appreciations. In response to Portugal she added that each victim group is different from another (women, refugees, immigrants, prisoners…) so one should have different ways of protection.

The report on Human Rights and International Solidarity didn’t received that many comments even thought the work of special rapporteur, Mr. Rizki had been fully welcomed and appreciated.

- Indonesia commented that International solidarity will serve to sustain globalisation on developing country.

- Bangladesh fully agreed with the special rapporteur who stated that International Solidarity was not an option but an obligation and added that the countries should be transparent on the international founding and economic issues.

Tunisia took the floor to say he totally agree with paragraph 12 (States parties has the obligation…) of the report and asked how the states should ensure that recommendation.

Human Rights council, Organizational Meeting, 20th June 2007 (9 a.m.-1 p.m.)

The session began by concluding with the countries’ remarks concerning the newly adopted document on Institution Building and the election of the new bureau.
Indonesia thanked the ambassador D’Alba for his outstanding work as the president of the council. The representative recognized that the adopted text was the result of a fruitful collaboration among States and expressed special thanks to China for the perseverance and the flexibility it demonstrated during negotiations.
Iran reaffirmed that the mandate on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories should be maintained until the end of the occupation.
Poland expressed regrets that certain mandates of the special procedures had not been maintained and without a comprehensive exam of their usefulness, here Poland cited the specific case of the mandate on Byelorussia.
The Republic of Korea expressed some concerns on the Universal Periodic Review (UPR). The representative stated that there should a more in depth examination of the country mandates and that the council should strengthen the mechanism by applying the lessons learned with the special procedures.
Tunisia thanked the delegations of Algeria and Pakistan and the different regional groups for their commitment to a consensus.
Nigeria commended the collaboration of the regional groups, and in particular the Algerian delegation representing the African region and for its role in negotiations, and acknowledged that the refinement of the system had allowed for its self-evaluation for the better.
Egypt wished for the council to concede more importance to the situation of Palestine and to take practical measures to tackle its particular circumstances and allow the Palestinian people to acquire their independence.
Algeria aligned itself on the declaration of Pakistan concerning the right to auto-determination. The representative stressed that one of the challenges facing the international community was the establishment of viable institutions and efficient procedures for the promotion and the protection of the right to auto-determination.
The Czech Republic appreciated the package as the result of a brilliant multilateral diplomacy; however it expressed disappointments concerning the annulment of the mandates on Byelorussia and Cuba despite the recurrent human rights violations in those countries, and assured the respective rapporteurs of the two cases of their continuous assistance.
Venezuela commended the rationalization of the country mandates, and particularly the suppression of the mandates on Byelorussia and Cuba, whom it considered was inferring from politicized decisions.
The "Organisation International de la Francophonie (OIF)" expressed its congratulations to the ambassador D’Alba and his bureau for the remarkable work accomplished and to the newly appointed president for his election and assured him of their collaboration for the labor ahead.
Sri-Lanka thanked the Algerian representative for the redaction of the code of conduct and also appreciated China for its firm and flexible endeavor taken during negotiations.
The International University of Women, on behalf of twelve NGOs, appreciated the incorporation of the gender equality question in the forth coming discussions of the council but deplored that it had not been included in its schedule.
After a short break, the council reviewed draft proposals, which had been deferred from its fifth session.
The council first examined the draft resolution A/HRC/5/L.4, on the follow-up to the report of the commission of Inquiry on Lebanon, introduced by Pakistan, on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, and Sudan, representing the Group of Arab States. After an oral amendments made by Pakistan, the European Union made a statement with regards to its wish to help the democratic government of Lebanon and the draft resolution was adopted without a vote.
The draft resolution A/HRC/5/L.5, on the Human Rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and follow-up to resolutions S-1/1 and S-3/1, was then introduced by Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Group of Arab States. Israel, as a concerned party, expressed its criticisms about the present resolution, considering that the mission had already taken place and did not give a fair account of the situation, and considered the resolution to be another attack against the Israeli government. Palestine, also expressing itself as a concerned party, stated that Israel continued to violate human rights on the occupied territories and urged the members of the council to adopt the resolution without a vote. The council subsequently adopted the resolution without a vote. Thereafter, Canada made a statement reaffirming its attachment to the carrying out of the council’s decisions but expressed concerns about the implementation of the cited resolutions. Germany, on behalf of the European Union, also expressed apprehension about the implementation of those resolutions.
Finally, the council considered the draft resolution A/HRC/5/L.6, on follow-up to decision S-4/101 on the situation in Darfur, introduced by Germany on behalf of the European Union and Egypt on behalf of the Group of African States. As a concerned party, Sudan made a statement where it reaffirmed its desire to find a political solution to the crisis of Darfur and expressed hope that the new hybrid force of the African Union and the United Nations will help for its realization. After the adoption of the resolution, Canada commended the work of consensus of all the parties involved, especially the Sudanese government for its commitment to pursue its collaboration with the group of experts.

Human Rights Council, Organizational Meeting, 19th June 2007 (3 p.m. - 6p.m.)

The session began with the election of the members of the bureau. Mr. Doru Romulus Costea, presented by Poland on behalf of the East –European group, was elected by acclamation by the council. He thanked the participants and particularly the ambassador D’Alba for his effort, determination and diplomatic skills deployed. He noticed that the creation of new mechanisms, such as the Universal Periodic Review and the new abilities given to special procedures, revealed that the stated were willing and were making progress in building the new body for the defense of human rights, in a spirit of trust and collaboration. He assured the council that he would do his best to make the new mechanisms work properly. Finally, he stressed the need for finalizing the procedures around the new mechanisms, to start as soon as possible and signal the endeavor and commitment of the council to the promotion and protection of human rights. The council thereafter elected the four vice presidents, representing respectively the States of Uruguay, Djibouti, Netherlands and Sri-Lanka.
Before the president was to continue with the follow-up to decisions of the council made previously, concerning Institution building of the council and the Draft code of conduct for special procedures mandate holders, Canada raised a point of order. The Canadian representative asked whether a decision had been indeed taken concerning those points. The president ruled that the decision had been taken by the council on its 9th meeting on June 18th and his ruling was approved by vote by all the members of the council except Canada.
Thereafter, several Nations made some remarks.
The United Kingdom considered that the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) was the sole innovation of the council and regretted that two mandates of the special procedures had not been renewed. He also expressed concerns about the impact of the violence between Hamas and Fattah on the civil population of the Palestinian territories.
Pakistan, on behalf of the Islamic Conference, stated that the UPR mechanism should remain an intergovernmental tool, with its nature depending on the approbation of the State under review.
Bangladesh wished to remind the council that the UPR should be based on the national reports and its outcome should derive from a consensus.
Malaysia thanked the representative of China for his effort and flexibility during the negotiations and wished to see a strong engagement on behalf of the mandate holders. Cuba argued against the double measure system and criticized Canada on not condemning the exactions commitment by the Unites States on the Cuban territory.
Morocco expressed regrets that the council had to vote for the adoption of a document which resulted from several days of negotiations, collaboration and consensus.
On behalf on the Asian group, Sri-Lanka thanked all the actors of the negotiations and stressed that the council should base its activities on cooperation.
Switzerland and France recognized that the adopted text represented a consensus but the former regretted the non-inclusion of independent expertise in the UPR process while France was disappointed that all the special procedures had not been maintained and hoped that the mandate holders would not loose their independence.
Finally, Israel expressed regrets about the adoption of the new document on institutional building, which it thought was the result of a politicized consensus.

Parallel event: The Right to the truth and transitional justice.

This events was organized by the delegations of Argentina and Switzerland. Switzerland wants to propose a resolution concerning the process of justice in transitional periods. The resolution should be transregional in order to strenghten the high Commissioner of Humand Rights.

Mr. Federico Villegas took the floor (Director of Human Rights, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, International TRade and Worship of Republic of Argentina).
Experience of Argentina with movments like "las Madres de Mayo" and "las abuelas" ask for change in accusation of officials and safety for impunity. It is becoming considered as a common right to know the truth on our past. It is therefore a right of the whole society and a right that contributes to the right to justice. Argentina is a kind of laboratory experience and is the country that has paid the biggest amount of money in the world for the cause of forced desappearances.

Mrs. Mona Rishmawi made a comment on the report (Legal Advisor, Office of UN High Commissioner for Human Rights).
This is the 2nd report. The first was about situating this right in the international law.
The second report is based on the information that they received from the states and NGOs after a verbal note they sent to them. A lot of states answered, goob basis. It is structured around 3 sections: the nature and content of the right to truth, its link with other riths, and the mechanisms: 1) It is a societal but autonomous right (exists by itself) and 2) it is linked with the right to investigate, the justice and the right to reparation. 3) the legal proceedings and the codes build the mechanisms process.
It is a right that is concerned about how societies emerging from a conflict deal with the past and the present. There are many components: prosectution, truth seeking, institution reform...
The OHCHR provides assistance on transitional justice and this experience brings policy tools. It faces challenges like amnesties. The Council has now to decide if it wants this resolution to go further.

Mr. Federico Andreu took then the floor (Legal Expert, International Commission of Juirists).
He explained a little bit more the historical origins of this right:
- Conference of Berlin and Paris on desappeared persons, end of 19 century. First idea of right to truth.
- Geneva Convention, Protocole 1, Art. 32: right to know
- Jurisprudence, since 1977 imposes not only during war time but also peace time.
- Since the 1990s, legislative process, traduction into norms.
- Convention on the protection of all desappeared persons (1st treaty of the UN): Art 24
- Practice: trial de la Platta, Peru, Bosnia-Herzegovina...
- New developments: resolution on the right to truth
This right is linked to other rights: reparation, identity (for the children mainly)... but also to obligations: inquiry, trial, fight impunity... It is a new right.

Mr. Leandro Despouy finally tok the floor (Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers).
There has been a big evolution during the last 50 years. It is a transformation of the judicial system that no one would have expected. It is characteristic of our times because it shows the changing nature of the relationship between individuals, and between individuals and states. It is a tool for the resolution of other rights. For example, there is an important relationship of reciprocity between this right and the right to justice. It has an important ethic and moral dimension because it concerns the dignity of the victims.
The lgitimity of this rights belong to the families and close persons and the whole society of the crime is grave (genocide).
It is therfore a cultural transformation. We passed from forgetting the past to the right of memory, necessary today to build democracy and solid institutions.

Main general comments:

- Maroc: also got his own experience and created the instence of equity and reconcilitation (IER). It examines the last 43 years (from the independence in 56 to 99, date of the creation of the instence on independent arbitrage) and makes propositions of reforms. It establishes the truth through investigation, public audiances... The recommandations target the rehabilitation (psycho, medical, professional...) and the community reparations (social, eco, cultural development programs). The goal is the restaure the faith int the institutions. (www.iec.ma)

- Spain: also adopted a law for reparation to the victims of Franco regime.

- France: noted that the process of reparation was often used as a way to turn away from a judicial process. How is it possible to show that this is not the right attitude?
Answer from Mrs. Mona Rishmawi: When UN directly involved there are guidelines or bottom lines: no amnesty. And then the other line is not to close the door for further mechanisms. She would like to see the national consultations as an important aspect. There are bars rather than sequences.
Answer from Mr. Villegas: he sees sequences in this case. It is the creation of a new Jus Cogens. UN can play important role, in exchange of best practices especially.

EAD

HRC, 5th session, 14.06, morning

Yesterday afternoon, President De Alba opened the institution building session. He distributed his final paper and explained that it was a compromise formula. The intention is to give a general overview. Thus, it has to be completed. The african group presented their new version of the code of conduct in which they tried to include everyones positions. ..
As the delegations discovered the paper yesterday the session was suspended to let them time to prepare their remarks and questions.

It reopened this morning at 11am, as an informal session. It was therefore open-ended in terms of participation. President De Alba insisted on the fact that we had to concentrate on the new elements. We then heard the general comments. It was again very expectable.
The delegation of Pakistan spoke in behalf of the OIC and claimed again that:
- UPR: outcome must be adopted by consensus but with consent of the state concerned. The principal basis must be the national report, all other sources are secondary. They accept a right to appeal for the mandates' holders but the final decision must be taken by the Council.
- Complaint procedure must be confidential
- not very happy about the fact that the text of the Agenda has not changed yet.
Bangladesh, Saoudi Arabia and others aligned on this declaration.

Cuba and India made very precise comments about the texte itself. Their propositions are available either on the extranet or will be distribute tomorrow.

China, speaking in behalf of 10 members of the Council, mostly said the same as Pakistan but added that the distinction between country mandates and thematic mandate should be maintained because the new nomination "geographic" mandate sounds bizarre to them, and they don't really know what it is refering to. They also insisted on the 2/3 majority for the rules of procedure. As it was still not taken into consideration they want to prepare a written amendment.

Then, we have the other bloc represented by Switzerland, Germany, Canada...
Switzerland noted that the ONGs were still not allowed to participate in the debate and asked for this to change.
- UPR: should not have the possibility to include a rapporteur pertaining to the same geographic area as the country concerned. No right of veto and UPR should work for all recommandations so that we don't get to a system "à la carte".
- Order of the day: insisted on the inclusion of a point called "other issue"
- Complaint procedure: the secretariat should transmit the complaint directly and not examine firstly if the admissibility criteria are fulfilled because otherwise it would damage the mechanisme. The goal is to improve the systeme, however we could have different views on what improvement means...
Germany:
- UPR: agrees with the fact that the level of development should be considered but this has nothing to do with the standards, otherwise there would be no more criteria of universality. This should be precised in the text.
- Complaint procedure: should be clearly written that it is confidential IN PRICNCIPLE. If the Council decides to use public pression it can give up this rule.

Norway wants the mandates to be extended for 3 years from the date of expiring.

EAD