Draft resolutions reviewed today are :
- 4/L. 16 : Draft Resolution about « Globalization and its impact… » accepted (NAM in favor).
- 4/L. 15 : Draft Resolution about « Strenghtening of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, as revised » (NAM in favor too). China asked for a modification of OP 11. This will be transmitted to the secretariat.
EU : attached great importance to the role of the High Commissioner. EU won’t agree on the draft resolution as it is set to day.
Draft resolution : accepted.
- 4/L. 17 : Draft Resolution about « The rectification of the legal status of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights ».
The process regarding the reform of the conventional institutions of the Commitee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCRCee) seems to be an issue. Question : is it necessary to revise something that used to work fine ? No polls.
- 4/L.8/Rev.1 and L.7/Rev.2 : Draft Resolution on Darfur as revised.
African group (Arab Group joined). Agreement finaly found between EU and AG.
However France appeared to be in favor of the deployment of an international force on ground WITHOUT DELAY. Furthermore, there is a strong call addressed to the sudanese government to cooperate with the ICC. L.8/Rev.1 is no longer valid after the adoption of L. 7/Rev. 2.
- 4/L. 12 : Draft Resolution about « Combating defamation of religions ».
Cf. « Oral revision for L-12 » = erase « in which… » and add paragraph in bold.
EU : ask for a poll about L. 12 and didn’t agree with the draft.
Main issue about this resolution : focus only on Islam and don’t mention other religions !
Draft finaly adopted.
- 4/L. 13 : Draft Resolution about « Elimination of all forms of intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief ».
Germany asked for somme modifications : paragr. 1 = erase « and subsequent » and paragr. 2 = « at its 6th session » instead of « regularly ». No polls.
- 4/L. 25 : Draft Resolution about « Incitement to racial and religious hatred and the promotion of tolerance ».
Nothing particular.
For more details : http://portal.ohchr.org/portal/page/portal/HRCExtranet/4thSession/DraftResolutions
vendredi 30 mars 2007
jeudi 29 mars 2007
HR Council, 4th Session, 29.3.07 Morning, report by A.F.
continuation of debate on 3 presented reports:
- Transnational corporations
- Health
- Human Rights Defenders
Agenda Item: "Related Debate":
issues raised:
- Importance of gender equality and rights of women: (by Argentina with support of 50 other states)
-> idea: the HR Council needs a strategy for gender mainstreaming, have a place in the Agenda for this item
- Concerns about HR situation in Zimbabwe: (by far the most often raised issue during the 2 hour debate)
(raised by Germandy as EU president with the support of 48 other states)
-> call for a dialogue of Government with the opposition
-> call for respect for HRs
-> call for the special rapporteurs on torture and freedom of opinion to visit Zimbabwe
-> African States underlined their opinion that african matters such as the situation in Zimbabwe should be dealt with by African States, and that the SADC is already looking for solutions
-> Zimbabwe tried to explain the hard life in its country as a result not of political repression but of the econimic sanctions imposed by the West. furthermore they stated that their government has been elected by the people of Zimbabwe, and that anyway the council should not interfere in internal affairs of the country.
- importance of one special form of discrimination, namely related to sexual orientation and gender identity (raised by Switzerland and supported by Norway in the name of the Nordic Countries)
- importance of fight against xenophobia and racism (raised by Mexico)
- Transnational corporations
- Health
- Human Rights Defenders
Agenda Item: "Related Debate":
issues raised:
- Importance of gender equality and rights of women: (by Argentina with support of 50 other states)
-> idea: the HR Council needs a strategy for gender mainstreaming, have a place in the Agenda for this item
- Concerns about HR situation in Zimbabwe: (by far the most often raised issue during the 2 hour debate)
(raised by Germandy as EU president with the support of 48 other states)
-> call for a dialogue of Government with the opposition
-> call for respect for HRs
-> call for the special rapporteurs on torture and freedom of opinion to visit Zimbabwe
-> African States underlined their opinion that african matters such as the situation in Zimbabwe should be dealt with by African States, and that the SADC is already looking for solutions
-> Zimbabwe tried to explain the hard life in its country as a result not of political repression but of the econimic sanctions imposed by the West. furthermore they stated that their government has been elected by the people of Zimbabwe, and that anyway the council should not interfere in internal affairs of the country.
- importance of one special form of discrimination, namely related to sexual orientation and gender identity (raised by Switzerland and supported by Norway in the name of the Nordic Countries)
- importance of fight against xenophobia and racism (raised by Mexico)
mercredi 28 mars 2007
Human Rights Council 28mars 15-18h by D.J
This session concerned three reports from Special Rapporteurs:
1. Report on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business entreprises by John Ruggie
Mr. Ruggie introduced the first results on the mapping of international standards on human rights for transnational corporations. He highlighted that the current voluntary mechanism is insufficient. Indeed, the transnational corporations don’t take human rights into account and don’t respect human rights rules voluntarily. Therefore, there is a need to create incentives or discouragement measures. Studies on the impact of trade on human rights have to be put forward as well.
Finally, Mr. Ruggie asked for an extension of his mandate (originally 18 months) for at least a year.
Among the speakers:
Switzerland supported Mr. Ruggie’s request for an extension of his mandate.
The Order of Malta confirmed the necessity of more cooperation between the human rights and health sector. It gave the example of lepers that suffer both medical problems and discrimination.
France criticized the blackmail done by transnational corporations to obtain the non-application of human rights principles by the countries. According to them, the voluntary system has to be abondonned because of its inefficiency. Indeed, the coporations “cherry pick” international norms, choosing most of the time the non-binding one. Transnational corporations must now be subordinated to global norms regarding the respect of human rights. Finally, the French ambassador asked for the victims of transnational coporations, particularly the Southern countries, to be listened to.
2. Report on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health by Paul Hunt
Mr. Hunt highlighted the significant progress in recent years on the issue of the right to health thanks to the HRC as well as civil society and specialised agencies. The next step is now to integrate human rights into health policies at the national and international levels. It is important to make health professionals aware that the human rights movement can be assets and allies and that both camps can reinforce each other. In this context, Mr. Hunt wishes that human rights become mainstreamed within WHO instead of staying a marginal, contested, underresourced way of thinking. The role of the countries that are both members of the HRC and the WHO’s Executive Board (Sri Lanka, Mali, Mexico, China, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Brazil, Japan and Romania) is crucial to achieve this.
Mr. Hunt pinpointed the problem of maternal mortality that is undercovered by the HRC while it is, accoding to him, a human rights catastrophe. 500 000 women die in childbirth or from complications of pregnancy each year while it could be avoided by wellknown interventions. This matter raises vital issues concerning women’s rights to life, health, equality and non-discrimination. Countries have to get involved in this issue.
Mr. Hunt is still developing the draft guidelines for pharmaceutical companies on access to medicines.
He also reported on the health situation of displaced Iraqis (2mio) and refugees (2mio) whose health situation is extremly precarious.
Finally, Mr. Hunt talked about the Palestinian situation that he finds scandalous. The economic sanctions decided after the election in January 2006 by donors shouldn’t have health consequences. Because they’ve been unpaid for several months, many health workers are on strike causing a worsening of the health situation.
Among the speakers:
Bangladesh highlighted that the rights to food, access to water and health were primordial and necessary to enjoy any other rights like freedom of expression etc.
Ecaduor criticized Nicaragua and Brazil for their violation of Indians’ human rights through the destruction of their habitat.
Cuba criticized the theft of health professionals by United States.
3. Report on the situation of human rights defenders by Hina Jilani
This report concentrated on the situation of human rights defenders working in the field of economics, social and cultural rights and the violation they endure because of their activities. Mrs. Jilani reminded the participants that ensuring economic, social and cultural rights is an obligation of all States. Then she noted that the most endangered defenders were those working in the defence of labour rights. So far 190 of them have suffered torture or other violent repression and death threats or have even been killed. 35 defenders have been killed in their defence of rights connected to land or natural resource ownership. Defenders of rights of indigenous people and minorities or LGBTI (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex) persons and women’s rights are especially vulnerable. In total, 241 defenders have been killed. The number of countries employing these extreme measures has also increased continuously.
Ms. Jilani also emphasized the importance of the participation of NGOs in the work of the HRC.
Her final recommendations insisted on the necessity of ending the impunity for violation of the rights of defenders and attempts to discredit them and their activities.
Among the speakers:
Cambodia criticized the conclusions of the report of Ms. Julani and especially the accusation of article 64. It argued that the report wasn’t completely transparent and that the government of Cambodia never hinders the work of human rights defendants.
Germany emphasized the problem that human rights defenders are often considered as political opponents in their countries.
Argentina insisted on the fight against discimination of LGBTI people that are still opposed by strong traditions. Several Western countries also supported the highlight on LGBTI people rights.
Australia criticized the situation in Zimbabwe and in Fiji while it wasn’t discussed in any report.
New Zealand also asked for more information on the situation in Zimbabwe after the torture of the opposition leader.
1. Report on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business entreprises by John Ruggie
Mr. Ruggie introduced the first results on the mapping of international standards on human rights for transnational corporations. He highlighted that the current voluntary mechanism is insufficient. Indeed, the transnational corporations don’t take human rights into account and don’t respect human rights rules voluntarily. Therefore, there is a need to create incentives or discouragement measures. Studies on the impact of trade on human rights have to be put forward as well.
Finally, Mr. Ruggie asked for an extension of his mandate (originally 18 months) for at least a year.
Among the speakers:
Switzerland supported Mr. Ruggie’s request for an extension of his mandate.
The Order of Malta confirmed the necessity of more cooperation between the human rights and health sector. It gave the example of lepers that suffer both medical problems and discrimination.
France criticized the blackmail done by transnational corporations to obtain the non-application of human rights principles by the countries. According to them, the voluntary system has to be abondonned because of its inefficiency. Indeed, the coporations “cherry pick” international norms, choosing most of the time the non-binding one. Transnational corporations must now be subordinated to global norms regarding the respect of human rights. Finally, the French ambassador asked for the victims of transnational coporations, particularly the Southern countries, to be listened to.
2. Report on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health by Paul Hunt
Mr. Hunt highlighted the significant progress in recent years on the issue of the right to health thanks to the HRC as well as civil society and specialised agencies. The next step is now to integrate human rights into health policies at the national and international levels. It is important to make health professionals aware that the human rights movement can be assets and allies and that both camps can reinforce each other. In this context, Mr. Hunt wishes that human rights become mainstreamed within WHO instead of staying a marginal, contested, underresourced way of thinking. The role of the countries that are both members of the HRC and the WHO’s Executive Board (Sri Lanka, Mali, Mexico, China, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Brazil, Japan and Romania) is crucial to achieve this.
Mr. Hunt pinpointed the problem of maternal mortality that is undercovered by the HRC while it is, accoding to him, a human rights catastrophe. 500 000 women die in childbirth or from complications of pregnancy each year while it could be avoided by wellknown interventions. This matter raises vital issues concerning women’s rights to life, health, equality and non-discrimination. Countries have to get involved in this issue.
Mr. Hunt is still developing the draft guidelines for pharmaceutical companies on access to medicines.
He also reported on the health situation of displaced Iraqis (2mio) and refugees (2mio) whose health situation is extremly precarious.
Finally, Mr. Hunt talked about the Palestinian situation that he finds scandalous. The economic sanctions decided after the election in January 2006 by donors shouldn’t have health consequences. Because they’ve been unpaid for several months, many health workers are on strike causing a worsening of the health situation.
Among the speakers:
Bangladesh highlighted that the rights to food, access to water and health were primordial and necessary to enjoy any other rights like freedom of expression etc.
Ecaduor criticized Nicaragua and Brazil for their violation of Indians’ human rights through the destruction of their habitat.
Cuba criticized the theft of health professionals by United States.
3. Report on the situation of human rights defenders by Hina Jilani
This report concentrated on the situation of human rights defenders working in the field of economics, social and cultural rights and the violation they endure because of their activities. Mrs. Jilani reminded the participants that ensuring economic, social and cultural rights is an obligation of all States. Then she noted that the most endangered defenders were those working in the defence of labour rights. So far 190 of them have suffered torture or other violent repression and death threats or have even been killed. 35 defenders have been killed in their defence of rights connected to land or natural resource ownership. Defenders of rights of indigenous people and minorities or LGBTI (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex) persons and women’s rights are especially vulnerable. In total, 241 defenders have been killed. The number of countries employing these extreme measures has also increased continuously.
Ms. Jilani also emphasized the importance of the participation of NGOs in the work of the HRC.
Her final recommendations insisted on the necessity of ending the impunity for violation of the rights of defenders and attempts to discredit them and their activities.
Among the speakers:
Cambodia criticized the conclusions of the report of Ms. Julani and especially the accusation of article 64. It argued that the report wasn’t completely transparent and that the government of Cambodia never hinders the work of human rights defendants.
Germany emphasized the problem that human rights defenders are often considered as political opponents in their countries.
Argentina insisted on the fight against discimination of LGBTI people that are still opposed by strong traditions. Several Western countries also supported the highlight on LGBTI people rights.
Australia criticized the situation in Zimbabwe and in Fiji while it wasn’t discussed in any report.
New Zealand also asked for more information on the situation in Zimbabwe after the torture of the opposition leader.
Informal Meeting on Review of Mandates, 28.3.07, Report by A.F.
continued discussion on the review of mandates:
basic reference: Non-Paper proposed by the facilitator of the WG for the Review of Special Procedures, H.E. Ambassador Tomas Husak
issues discussed: (cf: p. 11 of Non-paper under point II.B entitled: "Proposals on individual mandates"):
- what to do with the existing country mandates established by vote in the Comission of HR? this concernes especially the 3 mandates already established, namely: Cuba, Belarus, DPRK.
-> most of the NAM countries lead by Cuba are against the continuation of these mandates and ask for a complete termination of them. This is also supported by the Russian Federation, Belarus, Algeria (as the leader of the African Group) as well as by Iran.
-> on the other hand, the European Union countries supported by Japan, US, NZ, Australia, Canada, CH, want to continue with the country specific mandates, especially the ones already established by the commission as named above.
- question whether the UPR will constitute a substitute for country mandates:
-> Western group is against it, they see the 2 reviews as complementary mechanisms.
-> Idea to have a country mandate for each and every country, not soley pick a few ones (supported especially by Iran, South Africa)
- What happens to the thematic mandates?
-> proposal by the facilitator: if not changed or terminated, they will automatically be extended for 3 years (in opposition to the proposal for country mandates that would be extended for only 1 year):
-> many countries think that this is too long a period and ask for a prolongation for only 1 year
- establishment of new mandates:
-> proposal made for a moratorium on creation of new mandates during transitional year by Russia.
-> Switzerland proposes the establishment of a new mandate on comtemporary forms of slavery, since this issue has not yet received enough attention.
- the last point in the non-paper, entitled "code of Conduct", will be discussed in a further informal meeting in April.
basic reference: Non-Paper proposed by the facilitator of the WG for the Review of Special Procedures, H.E. Ambassador Tomas Husak
issues discussed: (cf: p. 11 of Non-paper under point II.B entitled: "Proposals on individual mandates"):
- what to do with the existing country mandates established by vote in the Comission of HR? this concernes especially the 3 mandates already established, namely: Cuba, Belarus, DPRK.
-> most of the NAM countries lead by Cuba are against the continuation of these mandates and ask for a complete termination of them. This is also supported by the Russian Federation, Belarus, Algeria (as the leader of the African Group) as well as by Iran.
-> on the other hand, the European Union countries supported by Japan, US, NZ, Australia, Canada, CH, want to continue with the country specific mandates, especially the ones already established by the commission as named above.
- question whether the UPR will constitute a substitute for country mandates:
-> Western group is against it, they see the 2 reviews as complementary mechanisms.
-> Idea to have a country mandate for each and every country, not soley pick a few ones (supported especially by Iran, South Africa)
- What happens to the thematic mandates?
-> proposal by the facilitator: if not changed or terminated, they will automatically be extended for 3 years (in opposition to the proposal for country mandates that would be extended for only 1 year):
-> many countries think that this is too long a period and ask for a prolongation for only 1 year
- establishment of new mandates:
-> proposal made for a moratorium on creation of new mandates during transitional year by Russia.
-> Switzerland proposes the establishment of a new mandate on comtemporary forms of slavery, since this issue has not yet received enough attention.
- the last point in the non-paper, entitled "code of Conduct", will be discussed in a further informal meeting in April.
wednesday 28.03.07 morning
HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL
4th SESSION
Report of the Wednesday 28th of March 2007, 10:00-13:00
The order of the was to examine the reports of the Special Rapporteurs on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (Mr. Philip Alston), on People of African Descent (Mr. Peter Kasanda) and on contemporary forms of racisms, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance (Mr. Doudou Diène).
In the report of Mr. Alston, 4 countries are listed, where the situation is particularly difficult because of various reasons (principle of obligatory death sentence, ignoring the interdiction of the death sentence for young people, social cleaning…). These countries are Iran, Guatemala, Sri Lanka and the Philippines.
Mr. Kasanda recalled that racial profiling is a violation of the right of non-discrimination and that racial discrimination in the justice process (Durban Program) is illegal. He recommends to take explicit legislative provisions against these frequent violations.
In the report of Mr. Diène, it is interesting to see that Switzerland is listed as a country where there is a real dynamic of racism and xenophobia. Switzerland is the illustration of the political use of identity tension coming from the multicultural process. France is also very concerned with this report and has to deal with the grave words of Mr. Pascal Sevran which said that the under-development of Africa is due to “the penis of the black man”.
Many countries intervened to show their support to the recommendations made by Special Rapporteurs and asked them practical answers to the problems that he brings up.
The theme of the relation between Human Rights and Humanitarian law was an important question concerning the USA. They asked for further information on the situation in Iran. The Special Rapporteur said that as it was a central question for his mandate, the debate was very utile and thus he would like to go to the USA.
Singapore did a very clear speech on death sentence. As there is no international consensus on this problem and neither on the definition of what is the most serious crime, this practice cannot be prohibited by the International law. Furthermore, this practice is, in some countries, part of the judicial system, and as every state is able to choose how to protect its citizens, they should be able to choose if they want to abolish the death sentence or not.
Mr. Alston answered to this, that it was not in the order of the day. It is right that each country can choose to use the death sentence or not but its execution has to be in accordance with the Human Rights principle.
Another fact came up very often. That is the political will of the states to fight against the contemporary forms of racism. The instruments of International law have to apply for the promotion of racial tolerance and the acceptance of existing differences within the society. Emphasis was put on the necessity of dialogue and understanding.
The last important problem that Mr. Diène pointed out is the incidence of the liberty of expression on racism. This principle is often used to make propaganda and he recalled that expression is a right but also has to be restricted when it encourages racism. He took the example of the Danish caricatures.
Finally, the DPRK accused clearly Japan of racial discrimination against their nationals living in Japan. Japan replied that it was not founded but the DPRK refused to accept these allegations saying that Japan failed to recognize its crimes. The DPRK called upon the Government of Japan to stop these “cruel repression” and to stop driving the Council in the wrong way.
4th SESSION
Report of the Wednesday 28th of March 2007, 10:00-13:00
The order of the was to examine the reports of the Special Rapporteurs on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (Mr. Philip Alston), on People of African Descent (Mr. Peter Kasanda) and on contemporary forms of racisms, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance (Mr. Doudou Diène).
In the report of Mr. Alston, 4 countries are listed, where the situation is particularly difficult because of various reasons (principle of obligatory death sentence, ignoring the interdiction of the death sentence for young people, social cleaning…). These countries are Iran, Guatemala, Sri Lanka and the Philippines.
Mr. Kasanda recalled that racial profiling is a violation of the right of non-discrimination and that racial discrimination in the justice process (Durban Program) is illegal. He recommends to take explicit legislative provisions against these frequent violations.
In the report of Mr. Diène, it is interesting to see that Switzerland is listed as a country where there is a real dynamic of racism and xenophobia. Switzerland is the illustration of the political use of identity tension coming from the multicultural process. France is also very concerned with this report and has to deal with the grave words of Mr. Pascal Sevran which said that the under-development of Africa is due to “the penis of the black man”.
Many countries intervened to show their support to the recommendations made by Special Rapporteurs and asked them practical answers to the problems that he brings up.
The theme of the relation between Human Rights and Humanitarian law was an important question concerning the USA. They asked for further information on the situation in Iran. The Special Rapporteur said that as it was a central question for his mandate, the debate was very utile and thus he would like to go to the USA.
Singapore did a very clear speech on death sentence. As there is no international consensus on this problem and neither on the definition of what is the most serious crime, this practice cannot be prohibited by the International law. Furthermore, this practice is, in some countries, part of the judicial system, and as every state is able to choose how to protect its citizens, they should be able to choose if they want to abolish the death sentence or not.
Mr. Alston answered to this, that it was not in the order of the day. It is right that each country can choose to use the death sentence or not but its execution has to be in accordance with the Human Rights principle.
Another fact came up very often. That is the political will of the states to fight against the contemporary forms of racism. The instruments of International law have to apply for the promotion of racial tolerance and the acceptance of existing differences within the society. Emphasis was put on the necessity of dialogue and understanding.
The last important problem that Mr. Diène pointed out is the incidence of the liberty of expression on racism. This principle is often used to make propaganda and he recalled that expression is a right but also has to be restricted when it encourages racism. He took the example of the Danish caricatures.
Finally, the DPRK accused clearly Japan of racial discrimination against their nationals living in Japan. Japan replied that it was not founded but the DPRK refused to accept these allegations saying that Japan failed to recognize its crimes. The DPRK called upon the Government of Japan to stop these “cruel repression” and to stop driving the Council in the wrong way.
mardi 27 mars 2007
HRC- March 27th (afternoon)- LR
At the beginning of the meeting, the Council concluded discussion on the reports of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, Ms. Asma Jahangir, the Special Rapporteur on the right of freedom of opinion and expression, Mr. Ambeyi Ligabo and the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Ms Leïla Zerrougui.
Ms. Asma Jahangir said that violent acts perpetrated in the name of religion should not be given impunity. She added that there was a need for dialogue between the different religion. She concluded by saying that religion should not be used for political ends. Mr. Ambeyi Ligabo said that filtering systems are a form of prior-censorship and cannot be justified. Ms. Leïla Zerrougui spoke about the problem of arbitrary detention in the context of the international transfer of detainees, particularly in efforts to counter terrorism. Moreover, Ms. Zerrougui spoke about the insufficiency of resources allocated to the penitentiary system and the resulting failure to protect prisoners’ rights.
The HRC then heard the presentation of reports by the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Mr. Philip Alston, of the Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent, Mr. Peter Kasanda and the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racisms, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, Mr. Doudou Diène.
Mr. Alston said that the question of the death penalty was an issue that divides the membership of the Council. His mandates was to engages States in dialogue concerning the application of norms regulating the death penalty. Some norms, such as the prohibition on sentencing juvenile offenders to death are however clear. The Rapporteur then mentioned specific country situation: Iran, Guatemala and the Philippines. Mr. Kasanda said that racial profiling is a serious human rights problem affecting many people. The use of criteria such as race, religion or skin color in police procedures leads to the stigmatization of people of African descent and other groups. Mr. Diène said that the upsurge of phenomena such as racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia constitute today one of the biggest threat against democracy. The Rapporteur then mentioned specific country situation: Switzerland and Italy.
Speaking as concerned countries in response to the reports were Guatemala, Philippines, Switzerland and Italy.
Finally, two draft resolutions (resolution A/HRC/4/L.2 on the OPT and A/HRC/4/L.6) were adopted without a vote by the HRC.
Ms. Asma Jahangir said that violent acts perpetrated in the name of religion should not be given impunity. She added that there was a need for dialogue between the different religion. She concluded by saying that religion should not be used for political ends. Mr. Ambeyi Ligabo said that filtering systems are a form of prior-censorship and cannot be justified. Ms. Leïla Zerrougui spoke about the problem of arbitrary detention in the context of the international transfer of detainees, particularly in efforts to counter terrorism. Moreover, Ms. Zerrougui spoke about the insufficiency of resources allocated to the penitentiary system and the resulting failure to protect prisoners’ rights.
The HRC then heard the presentation of reports by the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Mr. Philip Alston, of the Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent, Mr. Peter Kasanda and the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racisms, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, Mr. Doudou Diène.
Mr. Alston said that the question of the death penalty was an issue that divides the membership of the Council. His mandates was to engages States in dialogue concerning the application of norms regulating the death penalty. Some norms, such as the prohibition on sentencing juvenile offenders to death are however clear. The Rapporteur then mentioned specific country situation: Iran, Guatemala and the Philippines. Mr. Kasanda said that racial profiling is a serious human rights problem affecting many people. The use of criteria such as race, religion or skin color in police procedures leads to the stigmatization of people of African descent and other groups. Mr. Diène said that the upsurge of phenomena such as racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia constitute today one of the biggest threat against democracy. The Rapporteur then mentioned specific country situation: Switzerland and Italy.
Speaking as concerned countries in response to the reports were Guatemala, Philippines, Switzerland and Italy.
Finally, two draft resolutions (resolution A/HRC/4/L.2 on the OPT and A/HRC/4/L.6) were adopted without a vote by the HRC.
lundi 26 mars 2007
NAM-26.03.07-CB
NAM Meeting, 26.3.2007: Resolutions on the Right to development and the enhancement of International Cooperation in the Field of Human Rights
NAM is discussing its proposal on the Right to Development with the other delegation. Canada, Germany (EU), Norway, Japan, United States, Danemark, Slovenia,
§B and C§ are discussed easily.
The EU want to specially emphasise on the role of the Task Force.
Egypt opposes and South Africa finally proposes a compromise.
§D „enforcing“ is not acceptable for the Germany, Norway, Canada and Switzerland
they suggest: "fully implementing"
Egypt, South Africa and the President of the Meeting are of the opinion that this is not acceptable for NAM.
After the resolution on the enhancement of International Cooperation in the Field of Human Rights is discussed.
Lithuania rises concerns regarding the preamble and feels that on the last meeting (Friday the 23th) there where several misunderstandings. Others agree. The president promises to discuss these issues with the NAM.
Meeting is closed.
NAM is discussing its proposal on the Right to Development with the other delegation. Canada, Germany (EU), Norway, Japan, United States, Danemark, Slovenia,
§B and C§ are discussed easily.
The EU want to specially emphasise on the role of the Task Force.
Egypt opposes and South Africa finally proposes a compromise.
§D „enforcing“ is not acceptable for the Germany, Norway, Canada and Switzerland
they suggest: "fully implementing"
Egypt, South Africa and the President of the Meeting are of the opinion that this is not acceptable for NAM.
After the resolution on the enhancement of International Cooperation in the Field of Human Rights is discussed.
Lithuania rises concerns regarding the preamble and feels that on the last meeting (Friday the 23th) there where several misunderstandings. Others agree. The president promises to discuss these issues with the NAM.
Meeting is closed.
Informal Meeting on the UPR - March 26th - JM
The issues discussed today concerned :
I. Basis of Review
States agreed to base the UPR on
- the United Nations Charter
- the UDHR
- all human rights intstruments to which a State is party
- voluntary pledges and commitments made by States, including those undertaken when presenting their candidatures for election to HRC
- international humanitarian law, as and where applicable (this element constitute a revised compromise proposal by the facilitator)
- commitments undertaken in relevant UN conferences and summits (idem)
II. Principles and Objectives
The main elements of convergence stated that UPR should :
- be a cooperative mechanism based on objective and reliable information and on interactive dialogue
- promote universality, interdependence, indivisibility and the interrelatedness of all human rights
- not to be overly burdensome to the reporting State or to the agenda of the Council
- complement and not duplicate other human rights mechanismes, thus representing an added value
- ensure equal treatment of all States
- fully involve the country under review
- be conducted in an objective, transparent, non-selective, constructive, non-confrontational and non-politicized manner
- ensure participation of all relevant stakeholders, including non-governmental organizations (NGO’s) and national human rights institutions, in accordance
- with General Assembly Res. 60/251 and ECOSOC 1996/31
III. Periodicity and Order of Review
It appeared that reviews shall begin after adoption of the UPR mechanism by the Council. It seemed to the facilitator that all member States of the Council shall be reviewed durinf thier term of membership.
Notice that the first member and observer States to be reviewed will be chosen by drawing of lots. Alphabetical order will then be applied beginning with two countries, with the exception of those who volunteer to be reviewed (= compormise proposal by the Facilitator).
The periodicity of the review will be either four years (48 countries per year) or five years (39 countries per year) to be decided. The duration of the review is three hours.
IV. Process and Modalities of Review
The review will be based on a report prepared by the State concerned on the basis of General Guidelines to be adopted by the Council, and any other information considered relevant by the State concerned. In addition, compilation by OHCHR (information contained in the reports of treaty bodies, special procedures, including observations and comments by the State concerned, and other official United Nations documents) is to take into account.
V. Outcome of the Review
Mainly, the reviewed country should be FULLY involved in the outcome. Furthermore, the State concerned should be offered the possibility to present replies to questions or issues that were not sufficiently addressed during the interactive dialogue.
VI. Follow-up of the Review
The outcome of UPR, as a cooperative mechanism, should be implemented primarily by the State concerned and, as appropriate, by other relevant stakeholders.
After exhausting all efforts to encourage a State to cooperate with the UPR mechanism, the Council will address, as appropriate, cases of persistent non-cooperation with the mechanism.
Comments.
USA insisted that the HRC should keep the outcome and the follow-up to the review as light as possible. Reports should be summaries including recommendations.
Japan stressed the importance of the follow-up system.
Algeria, in the name of the African Group, reminded that the HRC should avoid politicization in the selectivity process of the country to be reviewed and double standards as well.
UK put forward there should not be an obligation to the State to produce a report. For UK such procedure implies delays in the UPR process (there are already reports in the other review mechanisms).
I. Basis of Review
States agreed to base the UPR on
- the United Nations Charter
- the UDHR
- all human rights intstruments to which a State is party
- voluntary pledges and commitments made by States, including those undertaken when presenting their candidatures for election to HRC
- international humanitarian law, as and where applicable (this element constitute a revised compromise proposal by the facilitator)
- commitments undertaken in relevant UN conferences and summits (idem)
II. Principles and Objectives
The main elements of convergence stated that UPR should :
- be a cooperative mechanism based on objective and reliable information and on interactive dialogue
- promote universality, interdependence, indivisibility and the interrelatedness of all human rights
- not to be overly burdensome to the reporting State or to the agenda of the Council
- complement and not duplicate other human rights mechanismes, thus representing an added value
- ensure equal treatment of all States
- fully involve the country under review
- be conducted in an objective, transparent, non-selective, constructive, non-confrontational and non-politicized manner
- ensure participation of all relevant stakeholders, including non-governmental organizations (NGO’s) and national human rights institutions, in accordance
- with General Assembly Res. 60/251 and ECOSOC 1996/31
III. Periodicity and Order of Review
It appeared that reviews shall begin after adoption of the UPR mechanism by the Council. It seemed to the facilitator that all member States of the Council shall be reviewed durinf thier term of membership.
Notice that the first member and observer States to be reviewed will be chosen by drawing of lots. Alphabetical order will then be applied beginning with two countries, with the exception of those who volunteer to be reviewed (= compormise proposal by the Facilitator).
The periodicity of the review will be either four years (48 countries per year) or five years (39 countries per year) to be decided. The duration of the review is three hours.
IV. Process and Modalities of Review
The review will be based on a report prepared by the State concerned on the basis of General Guidelines to be adopted by the Council, and any other information considered relevant by the State concerned. In addition, compilation by OHCHR (information contained in the reports of treaty bodies, special procedures, including observations and comments by the State concerned, and other official United Nations documents) is to take into account.
V. Outcome of the Review
Mainly, the reviewed country should be FULLY involved in the outcome. Furthermore, the State concerned should be offered the possibility to present replies to questions or issues that were not sufficiently addressed during the interactive dialogue.
VI. Follow-up of the Review
The outcome of UPR, as a cooperative mechanism, should be implemented primarily by the State concerned and, as appropriate, by other relevant stakeholders.
After exhausting all efforts to encourage a State to cooperate with the UPR mechanism, the Council will address, as appropriate, cases of persistent non-cooperation with the mechanism.
Comments.
USA insisted that the HRC should keep the outcome and the follow-up to the review as light as possible. Reports should be summaries including recommendations.
Japan stressed the importance of the follow-up system.
Algeria, in the name of the African Group, reminded that the HRC should avoid politicization in the selectivity process of the country to be reviewed and double standards as well.
UK put forward there should not be an obligation to the State to produce a report. For UK such procedure implies delays in the UPR process (there are already reports in the other review mechanisms).
HRC - March 26th - AB
Special event of this afternoon : The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The convention was adopted by the General Assembly December 2006 and will be open to ratification on March 30th 2007 (next Friday). It requires 20 ratifications to enter into force, which will undoubtedly be the case quickly as numerous countries expressed their intention to sign the convention on Friday.
After this event, not much time was left for the report on the Promotion and Protection of HR and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism and the report on Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Mr. Scheinin and Mr. Nowak therefore made a quick and rather general presention (the details of which you
can find on this links http://portal.ohchr.org/portal/page/portal/HRCExtranet/4thSession/OralStatements/260307/Tab16/Tab/Tab/Scheinin.pdf
http://portal.ohchr.org/portal/page/portal/HRCExtranet/4thSession/OralStatements/260307/Tab16/Tab/Tab/Nowak.pdf)
The interactive dialogue will take place tomorrow and the debate will probably be lively as many countries were named in the reports.
After this event, not much time was left for the report on the Promotion and Protection of HR and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism and the report on Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Mr. Scheinin and Mr. Nowak therefore made a quick and rather general presention (the details of which you
can find on this links http://portal.ohchr.org/portal/page/portal/HRCExtranet/4thSession/OralStatements/260307/Tab16/Tab/Tab/Scheinin.pdf
http://portal.ohchr.org/portal/page/portal/HRCExtranet/4thSession/OralStatements/260307/Tab16/Tab/Tab/Nowak.pdf)
The interactive dialogue will take place tomorrow and the debate will probably be lively as many countries were named in the reports.
vendredi 23 mars 2007
HRC - March 23rd - AB
The meeting began with the NGO’s remarks on the report of special rapporteur J. Dugard, regarding the Israel/Palestine issue. Half of them criticized the one-sidedness and politicization of the rapporteur, the others emphasizing the fact that Israel ought to be more cooperative with the HRC resolutions.
Then Mr. Muntarbhorn presented his report on Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. He said the main problems related to Human Rights were the :
• Refusal of the authorities to cooperate with the rapporteur
• Sustenance (aggravated by the decline of food aid since the international tension over DPRK’s nuclear programme at the end of 2006)
• Question of freedoms (in spite of a slight improvement over the recent years)
• Asylum
• Rights of women and children
• Responsability of the state to protect Human Rights
Korea’s delegate rejected the report and the mandate that gave birth to it, arguing that it was only the result of a conspiracy by the US, with Japan and EU’s complicity. He claimed that the socialist system guarantees the happiness of Korean people.
Then, as usual, a political scission occurred: South Korea, Germany, The Netherlands, Uk, Australia, Japan, Canada, New Zealand, and the USA congratulated the special rapporteur on his work and asked DPRK to be more cooperative, while China and Cuba denounced the pressures made by the US and EU, and the « demonization » of DPRK.
Mr Muntarbhorn reasserted his independency, saying that he only acts in interest of the victims.
Special rapporteur Mr. A. Okola then presented his report on Burundi, underlining the fact that he obtained full support of the authorities during his stay.
Burundi confirmed that the government is ready to cooperate with the HRC, and has already made efforts to fight impunity, such as implenting many reforms and allowing for an increased participation of civil society.
Most of the countries expressed their satisfaction that the situation is improving and asked how the international community could help Burundi to continue along this trend. Only Sudan said his deep concern for the famine now striking in Burundi.
The final report of the morning was about Myanmar, presented by special rapporteur S. Pinheiro. The main Human Rights issues in this country are the absence of democracy and the related problem of political prisoners. Moreover, the special rapporteur has not been granted access to the country since 2003 and the movements of the IRCR are restricted .
Myanmar’s delegate said the government is doing everything they can to improve HR but denounced the double-standard of the HRC.
Most of the delegations expressed their increasing concern regarding the degradation of HR conditions in Myanmar. In the same vein, Mr Pinheiro said we cannot continue with this drop by drop release of prisonners and that it’s time to speed up dialogue !
Then Mr. Muntarbhorn presented his report on Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. He said the main problems related to Human Rights were the :
• Refusal of the authorities to cooperate with the rapporteur
• Sustenance (aggravated by the decline of food aid since the international tension over DPRK’s nuclear programme at the end of 2006)
• Question of freedoms (in spite of a slight improvement over the recent years)
• Asylum
• Rights of women and children
• Responsability of the state to protect Human Rights
Korea’s delegate rejected the report and the mandate that gave birth to it, arguing that it was only the result of a conspiracy by the US, with Japan and EU’s complicity. He claimed that the socialist system guarantees the happiness of Korean people.
Then, as usual, a political scission occurred: South Korea, Germany, The Netherlands, Uk, Australia, Japan, Canada, New Zealand, and the USA congratulated the special rapporteur on his work and asked DPRK to be more cooperative, while China and Cuba denounced the pressures made by the US and EU, and the « demonization » of DPRK.
Mr Muntarbhorn reasserted his independency, saying that he only acts in interest of the victims.
Special rapporteur Mr. A. Okola then presented his report on Burundi, underlining the fact that he obtained full support of the authorities during his stay.
Burundi confirmed that the government is ready to cooperate with the HRC, and has already made efforts to fight impunity, such as implenting many reforms and allowing for an increased participation of civil society.
Most of the countries expressed their satisfaction that the situation is improving and asked how the international community could help Burundi to continue along this trend. Only Sudan said his deep concern for the famine now striking in Burundi.
The final report of the morning was about Myanmar, presented by special rapporteur S. Pinheiro. The main Human Rights issues in this country are the absence of democracy and the related problem of political prisoners. Moreover, the special rapporteur has not been granted access to the country since 2003 and the movements of the IRCR are restricted .
Myanmar’s delegate said the government is doing everything they can to improve HR but denounced the double-standard of the HRC.
Most of the delegations expressed their increasing concern regarding the degradation of HR conditions in Myanmar. In the same vein, Mr Pinheiro said we cannot continue with this drop by drop release of prisonners and that it’s time to speed up dialogue !
Open-ended informal consultations on NAM initiatives by C.N.
First resolution:
Cuba ( on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement): Draft decision
2006/… Human rights and unilateral coercive measures
No State took the floor; the resolution is adopted by consensus.
Second resolution:
Cuba ( on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement): Draft decision
2006/… Enhancement of international cooperation in the field of human rights
The paragraph a) and b) are discussed by Lithuania, China, Canada and Switzerland. The conclusion is that every reference to any paragraph of the resolution 60/251 must be deleted from the paragraph a), and the reference to the Sixth Session in the paragraph b) must also be deleted.
The resolution is not adopted yet. The secretary has to consult the NAM.
Third resolution:
Cuba ( on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement): Draft decision
2007/… Right to Development
This resolution was more problematic than the two others. There was many suggestions of language, from Switzerland, Germany, Canada. Egypt, Pakistan and Indonesia did not want to change or replacing words. Finally after a long discussion the Secretary decided to report the adoption of the resolution to Monday, she is going to go back to NAM members.
Cuba ( on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement): Draft decision
2006/… Human rights and unilateral coercive measures
No State took the floor; the resolution is adopted by consensus.
Second resolution:
Cuba ( on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement): Draft decision
2006/… Enhancement of international cooperation in the field of human rights
The paragraph a) and b) are discussed by Lithuania, China, Canada and Switzerland. The conclusion is that every reference to any paragraph of the resolution 60/251 must be deleted from the paragraph a), and the reference to the Sixth Session in the paragraph b) must also be deleted.
The resolution is not adopted yet. The secretary has to consult the NAM.
Third resolution:
Cuba ( on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement): Draft decision
2007/… Right to Development
This resolution was more problematic than the two others. There was many suggestions of language, from Switzerland, Germany, Canada. Egypt, Pakistan and Indonesia did not want to change or replacing words. Finally after a long discussion the Secretary decided to report the adoption of the resolution to Monday, she is going to go back to NAM members.
Meeting of 23.3.2007, afternoon
HRC
23.3.2007, afternoon 15-18h
report by Benedikt Kaelin, mission of timor leste in geneva
Report of the independent expert on Liberia, Ms. Charlotte Abaka
Ms.Abaka:
Different institutions are working fort he improvements of the HR situation. Involved in the process of deleting the death penalty from the draft. Different countries support Liberia through the UNDP. (depth cancellation)
Concerned country
- Liberia: not in the room
Other countries:
- Ghana: express the appreciation for the report.
- Germany: great value of the report. Concern about the HR situation, still far from satisfactory. Further convictions since the report was published? EU would welcome information on any progress.
- US: thanks to Liberian government. Question: sense of the current mood? How can HRC play a more supportive role?
- Canada: high incidence of gender based violence. Immediate priorities. More comprehensive measures are seeken to implement.
Replies of Ms.Abaka:
Thanks for the interest that countries have demonstrated. Thanks to all governments that have relieved the depths.
ONGs:
- Beckett fund of religious liberty: concern about religious liberty in Myanmar. Clear violations of the convention of the rights of the child (Myanmar is a state party).
- Human Rights Watch: how can the HRC help to improve the situation of people in Myanmar?
Discussion, related debate:
During the intervention of Canada, the delegation of China interrupts in order to ask what “related debate” exactly means. The president De Alba clarifies that this term refers to any topic, not only to the ones presented the same day.
Rights of reply:
- DPRK: accusations against DPRK show the conspiracy of US, EU and Japan
- Iran: ironical that Canadian delegation points at HR violations in Iran, regarding their violation of indigenous people’s rights. Who sits in the glass house should not throw stones.
- Sudan: jewish representative should be very careful about his expressions.
2 draft resolutions ready to take action:
Draft decision of Switzerland A/HRC/2/L.36 on “Transitional Justice”
- 8 additional co-sponsors to the resolution.
General comments: none
Draft has been adopted without a vote.
Draft decision of Portugal A/HRC/4/L.9 on the “Question of the realization in all countries of economic, social and cultural rights”
Timor Leste is co-sponsor to this draft! Portugal thanks all the delegations for constructive debates.
- 7 additional co-sponsors.
General comments:
- Senegal: traditional support for the resolution. Wanted to joined the list of co-sponsors. Ask for adding the “right of food”. Co-sponsors did not want to take up this right. Hope that this right will be added in future resolutions.
Draft has been adopted without a vote.
Call to co-sponsors of other resolutions: intensify consultations. Final date for presentations: 6 p.m.
Monday: continuation as originally planned. Closed meeting on reports of 1503 procedure. Tuesday: 9 a.m. – 6 p.m. straight through!! Draft decisions are considered maybe already in the middle of the week.
23.3.2007, afternoon 15-18h
report by Benedikt Kaelin, mission of timor leste in geneva
Report of the independent expert on Liberia, Ms. Charlotte Abaka
Ms.Abaka:
Different institutions are working fort he improvements of the HR situation. Involved in the process of deleting the death penalty from the draft. Different countries support Liberia through the UNDP. (depth cancellation)
Concerned country
- Liberia: not in the room
Other countries:
- Ghana: express the appreciation for the report.
- Germany: great value of the report. Concern about the HR situation, still far from satisfactory. Further convictions since the report was published? EU would welcome information on any progress.
- US: thanks to Liberian government. Question: sense of the current mood? How can HRC play a more supportive role?
- Canada: high incidence of gender based violence. Immediate priorities. More comprehensive measures are seeken to implement.
Replies of Ms.Abaka:
Thanks for the interest that countries have demonstrated. Thanks to all governments that have relieved the depths.
ONGs:
- Beckett fund of religious liberty: concern about religious liberty in Myanmar. Clear violations of the convention of the rights of the child (Myanmar is a state party).
- Human Rights Watch: how can the HRC help to improve the situation of people in Myanmar?
Discussion, related debate:
During the intervention of Canada, the delegation of China interrupts in order to ask what “related debate” exactly means. The president De Alba clarifies that this term refers to any topic, not only to the ones presented the same day.
Rights of reply:
- DPRK: accusations against DPRK show the conspiracy of US, EU and Japan
- Iran: ironical that Canadian delegation points at HR violations in Iran, regarding their violation of indigenous people’s rights. Who sits in the glass house should not throw stones.
- Sudan: jewish representative should be very careful about his expressions.
2 draft resolutions ready to take action:
Draft decision of Switzerland A/HRC/2/L.36 on “Transitional Justice”
- 8 additional co-sponsors to the resolution.
General comments: none
Draft has been adopted without a vote.
Draft decision of Portugal A/HRC/4/L.9 on the “Question of the realization in all countries of economic, social and cultural rights”
Timor Leste is co-sponsor to this draft! Portugal thanks all the delegations for constructive debates.
- 7 additional co-sponsors.
General comments:
- Senegal: traditional support for the resolution. Wanted to joined the list of co-sponsors. Ask for adding the “right of food”. Co-sponsors did not want to take up this right. Hope that this right will be added in future resolutions.
Draft has been adopted without a vote.
Call to co-sponsors of other resolutions: intensify consultations. Final date for presentations: 6 p.m.
Monday: continuation as originally planned. Closed meeting on reports of 1503 procedure. Tuesday: 9 a.m. – 6 p.m. straight through!! Draft decisions are considered maybe already in the middle of the week.
jeudi 22 mars 2007
HRC- March 22nd (Morning) - LR
Human Rights Council Regular Meeting
Thursday 22nd March 2007, 10pm-1pm
The HRC continued with its debate on the report by Santiago Corcuera Cabezut, the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on enforced or involuntary disappearances.
Speaking in the context of the interactive debate were Algeria, the Russian Federation, Yemen, Nepal, Philippines, Mexico, the DPRK, Canada, Argentina, Peru and Thailand followed by NGOs’ statements.
The HRC then debated various thematic issues raised earlier in the week. Speaking as Member States were Germany, the Netherlands, Finland, Mexico and Peru. Speaking as Observer States were the Holy See, the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, the United Republic of Tanzania, Chile, Australia, Norway, Armenia, Spain and Colombia, followed by NGOs.
In the general debate, countries spoke about the following themes: violence against women, the right of indigenous people, freedom of religion, the problem of internally displaced people, the human rights of children, enforced or involuntary disappearances, and minority rights.
Thursday 22nd March 2007, 10pm-1pm
The HRC continued with its debate on the report by Santiago Corcuera Cabezut, the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on enforced or involuntary disappearances.
Speaking in the context of the interactive debate were Algeria, the Russian Federation, Yemen, Nepal, Philippines, Mexico, the DPRK, Canada, Argentina, Peru and Thailand followed by NGOs’ statements.
The HRC then debated various thematic issues raised earlier in the week. Speaking as Member States were Germany, the Netherlands, Finland, Mexico and Peru. Speaking as Observer States were the Holy See, the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, the United Republic of Tanzania, Chile, Australia, Norway, Armenia, Spain and Colombia, followed by NGOs.
In the general debate, countries spoke about the following themes: violence against women, the right of indigenous people, freedom of religion, the problem of internally displaced people, the human rights of children, enforced or involuntary disappearances, and minority rights.
mercredi 21 mars 2007
Working group on Working Methods and Rules of Procedure of the HRC-Wednesday 21st March- 13’30 to 15’00 by PM
Three major issues:
I. Working Methods
II. Rules of Procedure
III. Special Sessions
Both elements (intended for further discussion on the Facilitator’s paper) which were really discussed were:
1) Role of the Bureau : Consensus on the fact it has to be limited on procedural matters (notably Belgium, USA and China)
2) Informal Meetings limited to members of the Council? : Very large consensus against (USA, Cuba, Mexico, Iran or Norway). The HRC does not have to look like the Security Council
Willingness of the Facilitator (Philippines) to avoid unnecessary duplication of work with General Assembly trough greater coordination; Methods of work shall not to be used to substitute or replace existing human rights mechanisms.
France (and the Facilitator) argues for flexibility in the Working Methods;
Slovenia underlines the need of transparency.
Next meeting: maybe next week (or next month…)
Paul Milliet
I. Working Methods
II. Rules of Procedure
III. Special Sessions
Both elements (intended for further discussion on the Facilitator’s paper) which were really discussed were:
1) Role of the Bureau : Consensus on the fact it has to be limited on procedural matters (notably Belgium, USA and China)
2) Informal Meetings limited to members of the Council? : Very large consensus against (USA, Cuba, Mexico, Iran or Norway). The HRC does not have to look like the Security Council
Willingness of the Facilitator (Philippines) to avoid unnecessary duplication of work with General Assembly trough greater coordination; Methods of work shall not to be used to substitute or replace existing human rights mechanisms.
France (and the Facilitator) argues for flexibility in the Working Methods;
Slovenia underlines the need of transparency.
Next meeting: maybe next week (or next month…)
Paul Milliet
Informal meeting on the Agenda - March 21st - AB
The facilitator submitted a draft agenda for the organisation of future HRC sessions. The two main issues debated were the following :
- Germany on behalf of the EU, as well as France, argued that the annual programme should be rather light and general agenda, to allow more flexibility. For instance, there should be enough time left during the HRC to deal with unexpected situations of emergency. On the opposite, Cuba on behalf of NAM, Mexico, USA, asked for a detailed programme of work, in order to increase the predictability of the HRC. China explained that the principle of flexibility is of less importance than the principle of predictability.
- Three options of agenda were described in the draft
Option A :
1. Economic, social and cultural rights
2. Civil and political rights
3. Right to development
4. Rights of peoples and specific groups and individuals
-> Algeria, Morocco, Malaysia, Iran, Argentina, South Africa, Cuba and Pakistan supported this option, the two latter specifying that the right to development should occupy the first place.
Norway and New Zealand also showed their preference for this option, but said that a fifth item should be added : country specific situations.
Option B :
1. Civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including right to development
2. Rights of peoples and specific groups and individuals
-> No one chose this solution
Option C :
1. Promotion and protection of HR
1. HR bodies and mechanisms
-> Germany, Switzerland, Belgium, the Netherlands and Mexico expressed their preference for this option because it is more inclusive, transversal, innovative and flexible.
- Germany on behalf of the EU, as well as France, argued that the annual programme should be rather light and general agenda, to allow more flexibility. For instance, there should be enough time left during the HRC to deal with unexpected situations of emergency. On the opposite, Cuba on behalf of NAM, Mexico, USA, asked for a detailed programme of work, in order to increase the predictability of the HRC. China explained that the principle of flexibility is of less importance than the principle of predictability.
- Three options of agenda were described in the draft
Option A :
1. Economic, social and cultural rights
2. Civil and political rights
3. Right to development
4. Rights of peoples and specific groups and individuals
-> Algeria, Morocco, Malaysia, Iran, Argentina, South Africa, Cuba and Pakistan supported this option, the two latter specifying that the right to development should occupy the first place.
Norway and New Zealand also showed their preference for this option, but said that a fifth item should be added : country specific situations.
Option B :
1. Civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including right to development
2. Rights of peoples and specific groups and individuals
-> No one chose this solution
Option C :
1. Promotion and protection of HR
1. HR bodies and mechanisms
-> Germany, Switzerland, Belgium, the Netherlands and Mexico expressed their preference for this option because it is more inclusive, transversal, innovative and flexible.
HRC- March 21st (Morning)-LR
Human Rights Council Regular Meeting
Wednesday 21st March 2007, 10am-1pm
At the beginning of the meeting, the Council concluded discussion on the reports of the Representative of the Secretary General on the human rights of internally displaced persons, Mr. Walter Kalin, of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, Ms. Yakin Erturk and of the Special Rapporteur on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography, Mr. Juan Miguel Petit.
Speaking in the context of the interactive dialogue were Algeria, USA, China, Canada, UK, Malaysia, Japan, Sweden, Bangladesh, Tunisia, Morocco, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Sudan, Brazil, Sri Lanka and NGOs.
In conclusion, Mr. Kalin said that the international community should provide technical assistance on the reform of land laws. Ms. Ertuk said that equal participation help bring greater inclusiveness in society which in turn can counteract human rights violations. Mr. Petit said that it was positive that China has raised the issue of donating of organs of prisoners.
The HRC then discussed the reports of the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on the question of the use of mercenaries as a mean of violating human rights, Mr. Jose Luis Gomez del Prado, the Independent Expert on the effects of economic reform policies and foreign debt on the full enjoyment of all human rights, Mr. Bernards Andrew Nyamwaya Mudho and the Special Rapporteur on the right to education, Mr. Vernor Munoz Villalobos.
Mr. Gomez del Prado said that the Group has established a system of individual communications process that allow it to receive and study allegations of possible violations. The WG deals with people who can be both violators and victims of human rights abuses. The WG deal for example with cases of private contractors implicated in torture, as well as cases of child-soldiers that act as mercenaries. The Chairperson-Rapporteur then mentioned specific country situation: Honduras, Ecuador and Peru. Mr. Nyamwaya Mudho said that the scope of his report was to analyse recent initiatives in the area of foreign debt and their impact on economic, social and cultural rights. The Independent Expert believes that states and international financial institutions must promote an alternative debt sustainability concept. Mr. Mudho considers a debt situation unsustainable if a country is not able to service its debt and achieve MDGs on time. Moreover, the primary responsibility of borrowing countries is to ensure that credits are invested in a productive and human rights promoting way. In summary, the exercise of the basic rights of the people of a debtor country can not be subordinated to the implementation of structural adjustment policies and economic reforms arising from debts. Mr Munoz Villalobos said that educative systems should stop seeing disabled children as problems ; on the contrary they should see them as an opportunity to enrich the system. Hence educative system should stop to segregate children with disabilities. The Special Rapporteur then mentioned two countries’ situation: Germany and Morocco.
Speaking as concerned countries were Honduras, Ecuador and Morocco.
Wednesday 21st March 2007, 10am-1pm
At the beginning of the meeting, the Council concluded discussion on the reports of the Representative of the Secretary General on the human rights of internally displaced persons, Mr. Walter Kalin, of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, Ms. Yakin Erturk and of the Special Rapporteur on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography, Mr. Juan Miguel Petit.
Speaking in the context of the interactive dialogue were Algeria, USA, China, Canada, UK, Malaysia, Japan, Sweden, Bangladesh, Tunisia, Morocco, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Sudan, Brazil, Sri Lanka and NGOs.
In conclusion, Mr. Kalin said that the international community should provide technical assistance on the reform of land laws. Ms. Ertuk said that equal participation help bring greater inclusiveness in society which in turn can counteract human rights violations. Mr. Petit said that it was positive that China has raised the issue of donating of organs of prisoners.
The HRC then discussed the reports of the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on the question of the use of mercenaries as a mean of violating human rights, Mr. Jose Luis Gomez del Prado, the Independent Expert on the effects of economic reform policies and foreign debt on the full enjoyment of all human rights, Mr. Bernards Andrew Nyamwaya Mudho and the Special Rapporteur on the right to education, Mr. Vernor Munoz Villalobos.
Mr. Gomez del Prado said that the Group has established a system of individual communications process that allow it to receive and study allegations of possible violations. The WG deals with people who can be both violators and victims of human rights abuses. The WG deal for example with cases of private contractors implicated in torture, as well as cases of child-soldiers that act as mercenaries. The Chairperson-Rapporteur then mentioned specific country situation: Honduras, Ecuador and Peru. Mr. Nyamwaya Mudho said that the scope of his report was to analyse recent initiatives in the area of foreign debt and their impact on economic, social and cultural rights. The Independent Expert believes that states and international financial institutions must promote an alternative debt sustainability concept. Mr. Mudho considers a debt situation unsustainable if a country is not able to service its debt and achieve MDGs on time. Moreover, the primary responsibility of borrowing countries is to ensure that credits are invested in a productive and human rights promoting way. In summary, the exercise of the basic rights of the people of a debtor country can not be subordinated to the implementation of structural adjustment policies and economic reforms arising from debts. Mr Munoz Villalobos said that educative systems should stop seeing disabled children as problems ; on the contrary they should see them as an opportunity to enrich the system. Hence educative system should stop to segregate children with disabilities. The Special Rapporteur then mentioned two countries’ situation: Germany and Morocco.
Speaking as concerned countries were Honduras, Ecuador and Morocco.
mardi 20 mars 2007
4th Session of the Human Rights Council: Wednesday 20th March 15:00 - 18:00 - 15th Plenary Meeting by PM
- Answers by the Independent expert on minorities issues
Ms. Gay Mc Dougall
1) The poor population is more incline to be victim of violence
2) It is hard to define precisely the notion of “conflict prevention”
3) Willingness to collaborate with regional organizations (AU, OAS)
4) Minorities issues: interconnection between all pillars of the UN: (Peace and security, human rights, development…)
- Answers by the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants
Mr. Jorge A. Bustamante
1) What is the responsibility for the countries of origin of the migrants? that one must be reduced
2) Countries of origin are reticent to admit their errors
3) Importance of the participation of the civil society
- Answers by the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people
Mr. Rodolfo Stavenhagen
1) Problem of the definition of indigenous people
2) This problem does not have to harm the development of their rights
3) The Council has to facilitate the Declaration’s implementation
- Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights of internally displaced persons (IDP’s)
Mr. Walter Kälin
1) Focus on durable situations
2) Peace settlements should mention the fate of the IDP’s
3) It is necessary to study the major causes creating such movements
- Report by the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences
Ms. Yakin Ertürk
1) Culture based discourses, used to justify or explain violence against women, tend to reduce the phenomenon to a cultural problem
2) Gender inequality is one of the common elements of history across all cultures and civilizations
3) It is important to underline the universality of violence against women and its socio-historical causes, because we are increasingly observing the strengthening of cultural relativist claims over women’s lives
4) The mandate of this Special Rapporteur was created in the wake of the Vienna Summit on Human Rights, which affirmed that women’s rights are human rights
- Report by the Special Rapporteur on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography
Mr. Juan Miguel Petit
1) Issue of illegal trafficking of children’s organs and tissues is still greater
2) It is primordial that all States adopt legislation and standards regulating organ and tissue transplantation
3) He recommends all States to set up rapid-response programmes regarding the abduction of children; Ensure that criminal proceedings against sellers and traffickers and to establish assistance and rehabilitation facilities specifically designed for victims
4) Educational programmes as well as awareness-raising activities are essentiel
- Interactive dialogue with delegates
Interesting Speakers:
Australia: help for improve the statute of the women in the area of South Pacific (Fiji, Vanuatu), with good results.
Germany (on behalf of the European Union): The increase of the number of IDP’s is disturbing.
Pakistan (on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Conference): The International community must pay special attention to the plight of women and their families living under foreign occupation; Grateful to the report to mention the gun ownership and the wide spread portrayal of women as sexual objects in the media as new patterns of cultural practices that discriminate against women.
Paul Milliet
Ms. Gay Mc Dougall
1) The poor population is more incline to be victim of violence
2) It is hard to define precisely the notion of “conflict prevention”
3) Willingness to collaborate with regional organizations (AU, OAS)
4) Minorities issues: interconnection between all pillars of the UN: (Peace and security, human rights, development…)
- Answers by the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants
Mr. Jorge A. Bustamante
1) What is the responsibility for the countries of origin of the migrants? that one must be reduced
2) Countries of origin are reticent to admit their errors
3) Importance of the participation of the civil society
- Answers by the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people
Mr. Rodolfo Stavenhagen
1) Problem of the definition of indigenous people
2) This problem does not have to harm the development of their rights
3) The Council has to facilitate the Declaration’s implementation
- Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights of internally displaced persons (IDP’s)
Mr. Walter Kälin
1) Focus on durable situations
2) Peace settlements should mention the fate of the IDP’s
3) It is necessary to study the major causes creating such movements
- Report by the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences
Ms. Yakin Ertürk
1) Culture based discourses, used to justify or explain violence against women, tend to reduce the phenomenon to a cultural problem
2) Gender inequality is one of the common elements of history across all cultures and civilizations
3) It is important to underline the universality of violence against women and its socio-historical causes, because we are increasingly observing the strengthening of cultural relativist claims over women’s lives
4) The mandate of this Special Rapporteur was created in the wake of the Vienna Summit on Human Rights, which affirmed that women’s rights are human rights
- Report by the Special Rapporteur on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography
Mr. Juan Miguel Petit
1) Issue of illegal trafficking of children’s organs and tissues is still greater
2) It is primordial that all States adopt legislation and standards regulating organ and tissue transplantation
3) He recommends all States to set up rapid-response programmes regarding the abduction of children; Ensure that criminal proceedings against sellers and traffickers and to establish assistance and rehabilitation facilities specifically designed for victims
4) Educational programmes as well as awareness-raising activities are essentiel
- Interactive dialogue with delegates
Interesting Speakers:
Australia: help for improve the statute of the women in the area of South Pacific (Fiji, Vanuatu), with good results.
Germany (on behalf of the European Union): The increase of the number of IDP’s is disturbing.
Pakistan (on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Conference): The International community must pay special attention to the plight of women and their families living under foreign occupation; Grateful to the report to mention the gun ownership and the wide spread portrayal of women as sexual objects in the media as new patterns of cultural practices that discriminate against women.
Paul Milliet
HRC 20.03.07: Implementation of General Assembly resolution 60/251 of 15 March 2006 entitled “Human Rights Council” by Corinne
10 a.m. to 1 p.m.
The meeting begin by the presentation of reports:
Report of the Independent Expert on minority issues by Ms. Gay McDougall
“Minorities face high and disproportionate levels of poverty and the dynamics of that poverty are often more complex in nature and defy the rationale of common denominator policies for poverty alleviation. Often minorities are neglected or excluded from effort to achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Recognizing the special connection between the situation or minorities and achieving the MNDs, I decided to focus my second annual report on this subject. (…) Governments (…) must give high priority to ensuring that disadvantaged miorities are considered in relation to their unique conditions of exclusion and discrimination, and consequent extreme and persistent poverty. (…) I have produced under my mandate a survey of reports of 50 countries on their progress toward the Millennium Development Goals, and selected Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs) to determine if and how marginalized ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities are reflected in these documents. (…) The findings of this survex are revealing. Ethnic or linguistic minorities are mentioned in only 19 of the 50 MDG Country Reports reviewed. The inequalities experienced by religious minorities are mentioned in only two of the Report.(…) Minorities are virtually absent from the MDG country Reports from donor countries.(…) This is a weak understanding of the causes of poverty for minorities and its manifestations in the social, economic, cultural and political spheres. (…) The issue of discrimination, is noticeably absent in the poverty analyses and also in policy responses for poverty reduction.(…)
Visit to Hungary:
Hungary’s legislation and policy to address the situation of the Romas community are welcome. (…) Roma communities continue to experience widespread discrimination and exclusion, unacceptably low human development features, and severe levels of poverty. (…) Hungary has impressive anti-discrimination legislation in place(…) Hunagary must take stronger affirmative action measures or Roma community that seek to redress historic discrimination. More aggressive policies are required by the government , for example to enforce its policy of school desegregation (…) Hungary has rightly been seen as progressive in terms of its legislation and policy on minority (…).
Visit to Ethiopia
The Constitution of Ethiopia provides a strong foundation for rights, freedoms, and equality, recognizing the civil and political as well as economic, social and cultural rightof the diverse “nations, nationalities and peoples” of Ethiopia. (…) However,…, equal and effective participation of members of minority ethnic groupwithin a system of democratic decision-making remains unfulfilled..(…) My visit made it clear to me that ethnical federalism has served to further politicize ethnicity as the most salient individual and group marker , leading to new arenas, dynamics and dimensions of ethnic division, discrimination and exclusion.”
Report of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants by Mr. Jorge A. Bustamante
He sent out a questionnaire to all UN memeber states on « Impact of certain laws and administrative measures on migrants ». Only 30 states answer!
“Visit of Korea:
(…) I noted that the civil society is highly organized to address the phenomena of migration(…) I strongly urge the Government of the Republic of Korea to:
- ratify the 1990 International Convention on the protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Memebers of their Families;
- review the Act Concerning the Employment Permit for Migrant Workers, the EPS Act;
- and protect the rights of migrant women including those involved in international marriages.
Visit of Indonesia:
(…) the experience of (;igrant)women during the migration processes were horrific; many recounted egregious physical and psychological abuses suffered during their employment abroad(…) I would urge the government of Indonesia to pay particular attention to amending the memorandum of understanding; the MOU signed with Malaysia in May 2006.(…)
Conclusion:
(…) These people (far from their homes and families) are the most vulnerable groups facing violence, hostility and widespread abuse. (…) The problem demands international cooperation between countries of origin, transit and destination.(…) .
Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people by Mr. Rodolfo Stavenhagen.
“small number of indigenous community facing serious risk of physical disappearance. This is the case in several South American countries in the Amazon region.(…) Extractive activities, large commercial plantations and non sustainable consumption patterns have led broad pollution and environmental degradation,….These processes have a particularly dramatic impact on indigenous peoples.(…)
Indigenous migrants are particularly exposed to violation of their human rights.
Visit to Ecuador:
The Political Constituion of Ecuador affirms several collective rights that are specific to indigenous people and nationalities.(…) The gradual deterioration of the indigenous habitat and the impact of extractive activities on the environement and on indigenous peoples’ righs are objects of special concern…Special attention should be given to the conditions of life of people living in isolation.(…)
Visit to Kenya:
(…) Their main problems (of hunter-gatherer and pastoralist communities), in terms of human rights, derive from the progressive loss and the environmental degradation of their lands, traditional forest and other natural resources as a result of both colonial and postcolonial dispossession.(…) The process of democratization in Kenya has allowed indigenous organization to place their concerns on the national agenda, especially in the discussion regarding constitutional reform. The Government announced important initiatives such as several projects of communal development in ari and semi-arid regions and the programme of universalprimary education.”
After these presentations the concerned states, 24 others countries and 8 Non-governemental organizations took the floor.
· The deadline for the submission of draft proposals has been set for Friday, 23 March
2007, at 6.00 p.m.
The meeting begin by the presentation of reports:
Report of the Independent Expert on minority issues by Ms. Gay McDougall
“Minorities face high and disproportionate levels of poverty and the dynamics of that poverty are often more complex in nature and defy the rationale of common denominator policies for poverty alleviation. Often minorities are neglected or excluded from effort to achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Recognizing the special connection between the situation or minorities and achieving the MNDs, I decided to focus my second annual report on this subject. (…) Governments (…) must give high priority to ensuring that disadvantaged miorities are considered in relation to their unique conditions of exclusion and discrimination, and consequent extreme and persistent poverty. (…) I have produced under my mandate a survey of reports of 50 countries on their progress toward the Millennium Development Goals, and selected Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs) to determine if and how marginalized ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities are reflected in these documents. (…) The findings of this survex are revealing. Ethnic or linguistic minorities are mentioned in only 19 of the 50 MDG Country Reports reviewed. The inequalities experienced by religious minorities are mentioned in only two of the Report.(…) Minorities are virtually absent from the MDG country Reports from donor countries.(…) This is a weak understanding of the causes of poverty for minorities and its manifestations in the social, economic, cultural and political spheres. (…) The issue of discrimination, is noticeably absent in the poverty analyses and also in policy responses for poverty reduction.(…)
Visit to Hungary:
Hungary’s legislation and policy to address the situation of the Romas community are welcome. (…) Roma communities continue to experience widespread discrimination and exclusion, unacceptably low human development features, and severe levels of poverty. (…) Hungary has impressive anti-discrimination legislation in place(…) Hunagary must take stronger affirmative action measures or Roma community that seek to redress historic discrimination. More aggressive policies are required by the government , for example to enforce its policy of school desegregation (…) Hungary has rightly been seen as progressive in terms of its legislation and policy on minority (…).
Visit to Ethiopia
The Constitution of Ethiopia provides a strong foundation for rights, freedoms, and equality, recognizing the civil and political as well as economic, social and cultural rightof the diverse “nations, nationalities and peoples” of Ethiopia. (…) However,…, equal and effective participation of members of minority ethnic groupwithin a system of democratic decision-making remains unfulfilled..(…) My visit made it clear to me that ethnical federalism has served to further politicize ethnicity as the most salient individual and group marker , leading to new arenas, dynamics and dimensions of ethnic division, discrimination and exclusion.”
Report of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants by Mr. Jorge A. Bustamante
He sent out a questionnaire to all UN memeber states on « Impact of certain laws and administrative measures on migrants ». Only 30 states answer!
“Visit of Korea:
(…) I noted that the civil society is highly organized to address the phenomena of migration(…) I strongly urge the Government of the Republic of Korea to:
- ratify the 1990 International Convention on the protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Memebers of their Families;
- review the Act Concerning the Employment Permit for Migrant Workers, the EPS Act;
- and protect the rights of migrant women including those involved in international marriages.
Visit of Indonesia:
(…) the experience of (;igrant)women during the migration processes were horrific; many recounted egregious physical and psychological abuses suffered during their employment abroad(…) I would urge the government of Indonesia to pay particular attention to amending the memorandum of understanding; the MOU signed with Malaysia in May 2006.(…)
Conclusion:
(…) These people (far from their homes and families) are the most vulnerable groups facing violence, hostility and widespread abuse. (…) The problem demands international cooperation between countries of origin, transit and destination.(…) .
Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people by Mr. Rodolfo Stavenhagen.
“small number of indigenous community facing serious risk of physical disappearance. This is the case in several South American countries in the Amazon region.(…) Extractive activities, large commercial plantations and non sustainable consumption patterns have led broad pollution and environmental degradation,….These processes have a particularly dramatic impact on indigenous peoples.(…)
Indigenous migrants are particularly exposed to violation of their human rights.
Visit to Ecuador:
The Political Constituion of Ecuador affirms several collective rights that are specific to indigenous people and nationalities.(…) The gradual deterioration of the indigenous habitat and the impact of extractive activities on the environement and on indigenous peoples’ righs are objects of special concern…Special attention should be given to the conditions of life of people living in isolation.(…)
Visit to Kenya:
(…) Their main problems (of hunter-gatherer and pastoralist communities), in terms of human rights, derive from the progressive loss and the environmental degradation of their lands, traditional forest and other natural resources as a result of both colonial and postcolonial dispossession.(…) The process of democratization in Kenya has allowed indigenous organization to place their concerns on the national agenda, especially in the discussion regarding constitutional reform. The Government announced important initiatives such as several projects of communal development in ari and semi-arid regions and the programme of universalprimary education.”
After these presentations the concerned states, 24 others countries and 8 Non-governemental organizations took the floor.
· The deadline for the submission of draft proposals has been set for Friday, 23 March
2007, at 6.00 p.m.
Informal meeting on Complaint procedure - March 20th - AB
Almost half of this meeting was spent on a procedural debate, started by the delegate of Algeria who complained about the absence of interpretation. Indonesia joined him, asking for a full-recorded, transparent formal meeting with interpretation. The facilitator tried to re-focus the debate on substantive issues but was not immediately successful.
-----> The draft paper submitted by the facilitator paragraph stated in the 3rd paragraph that « a complaint procedure is established, with a view to adressing consistent patterns of gross and reliably attested violations of all HR and all fundamental freedoms occurring in any part of the world and under any circumstances ». This formulation was discussed during the remaining time.
- The USA, Russia, India said that the words « under any circumstances » were superfluous and should be removed. The purpose was probably to reduce the scope of action of the complaint procedure.
- Confidentiality of the procedure was asked by Russia, India, China, Cuba, Algeria and South Africa, alledgedly to better protect victims. UK reacted sharply by pointing out that confidentiality does not protect victims, but rather protects governments from embarrassment.
- Azerbaijan and South Africa wanted to replace « consistant patterns of gross and reliably attested violations of all HR... » by « gross and systematic violations of all HR ». UK said that such a change would increase the threshold of the procedure, and that it should then contain tougher measures in cas of violations.
The meeting ended with not much achieved. The remaining of the draft will have to be discussed in WG during the month of April.
Special Event “Violence against Children”- LB
4th Session of the Human Rights Council
Special Event “Violence against Children”– 19.03.06
1. Intervention by the Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights Ms Kyung-wha Kang: Talking about the follow-up to the study’s recommendations, the High commissioner sees as essential that the Council provides leadership. The study makes 5 recommendations for its implementation in 2007:
a. Strengthening the legal frameworks towards the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
b. Prevention.
c. Promotion of participation of children in follow-up processes.
d. Integration of measures to prevent and respond violence against children in national action plans.
e. Strengthening of data collection.
On its part the High Commissioner and the OHCR are committed to cooperate with the Council, the member states, Mr. Pinheiro, all relevant UN agencies and civil society.
2. Statement of the Independent Expert for the SG’s Study on violence against children Paulo Sérgio Pinheiro: Violence against children remains hidden in many cases, thus more important is it to work on prevention. The study must be regarded as a tool for states in accordance with international organizations and civil society. The follow-up of the study includes more dissemination (translation of study-materials, publication in schools).
3. New Zealand’s delegate affirms the importance for a follow-up strategy in time for the UN GA in October 2007. She reminds how children with vulnerabilities are often targets of sexual violence, as other studies have shown.
4. Save the children and other ONG have made a statement in which they stress the importance to include children in decision making processes related to the study.
5. World Population Foundation raises the issue of child marriage, a form of sexual violence to children.
6. Union de l'Accion Féminine makes reference to children taken in hostage in conflicts situations and for this reason want the UN to be more active in inspecting in war areas.
7. The Association for World Education raises the question of female excision as well as of child marriage, both being practiced in many countries yet.
8. The representative of UNICEF underlines how an increasing number of governments make use of UN data and have action lines regarding violence against children: 26 (+12) respectively 64 (+10) in 2006. Work is being undertaken towards a Convention on the rights of disabled persons as well as towards strengthening measures of assistance in this area. Capacity building remains strongly dependent on donor aid though. Legislation at national level is crucial in order to obtain results in the follow-up of the study. The problem of disaggregated data remains an issue. A child-protection strategy for the next 10 years is being planned for autumn with following features.
9. The delegate from the WHO speaks on the issue of data: The organization works for universal standards, building up more capacities in the collection of data and finally supports surveys on the national level.
Documents:
The study: http://www.violencestudy.org/r1,
Resolutions: General Assembly 61/146. Rights of the child,
57/190. Rights of the child
Questionnaire to East Timor:
http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/CRC/docs/study/responses/Timor-Leste.pdf
LB
Special Event “Violence against Children”– 19.03.06
1. Intervention by the Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights Ms Kyung-wha Kang: Talking about the follow-up to the study’s recommendations, the High commissioner sees as essential that the Council provides leadership. The study makes 5 recommendations for its implementation in 2007:
a. Strengthening the legal frameworks towards the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
b. Prevention.
c. Promotion of participation of children in follow-up processes.
d. Integration of measures to prevent and respond violence against children in national action plans.
e. Strengthening of data collection.
On its part the High Commissioner and the OHCR are committed to cooperate with the Council, the member states, Mr. Pinheiro, all relevant UN agencies and civil society.
2. Statement of the Independent Expert for the SG’s Study on violence against children Paulo Sérgio Pinheiro: Violence against children remains hidden in many cases, thus more important is it to work on prevention. The study must be regarded as a tool for states in accordance with international organizations and civil society. The follow-up of the study includes more dissemination (translation of study-materials, publication in schools).
3. New Zealand’s delegate affirms the importance for a follow-up strategy in time for the UN GA in October 2007. She reminds how children with vulnerabilities are often targets of sexual violence, as other studies have shown.
4. Save the children and other ONG have made a statement in which they stress the importance to include children in decision making processes related to the study.
5. World Population Foundation raises the issue of child marriage, a form of sexual violence to children.
6. Union de l'Accion Féminine makes reference to children taken in hostage in conflicts situations and for this reason want the UN to be more active in inspecting in war areas.
7. The Association for World Education raises the question of female excision as well as of child marriage, both being practiced in many countries yet.
8. The representative of UNICEF underlines how an increasing number of governments make use of UN data and have action lines regarding violence against children: 26 (+12) respectively 64 (+10) in 2006. Work is being undertaken towards a Convention on the rights of disabled persons as well as towards strengthening measures of assistance in this area. Capacity building remains strongly dependent on donor aid though. Legislation at national level is crucial in order to obtain results in the follow-up of the study. The problem of disaggregated data remains an issue. A child-protection strategy for the next 10 years is being planned for autumn with following features.
9. The delegate from the WHO speaks on the issue of data: The organization works for universal standards, building up more capacities in the collection of data and finally supports surveys on the national level.
Documents:
The study: http://www.violencestudy.org/r1,
Resolutions: General Assembly 61/146. Rights of the child,
57/190. Rights of the child
Questionnaire to East Timor:
http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/CRC/docs/study/responses/Timor-Leste.pdf
LB
lundi 19 mars 2007
Informal consultation on UPR, 19.3. 07, report by A.F.
during this informal consultation today, the states mainly discussed the Non-Paper on the UPR Mechanism submitted by H.E Ambassador of Morocco, the facilitator of the WG on the UPR:
Points of discussion:
I) Basis of the review:
- should international humanitarian law (IHL) constitute a basis for the review?
-> Cuba (on behalf of NAM) wants IHL to be considered in all cases. Germany (on behalf of the EU) and other western states only want IHL to be considered when relevant (thus in armed conflict) while Human rights law still applies as a lex specialis. Switzerland proposed a change of wording for this issue, namely: "in situations where IHL is applicable, HR law shall be applied in the light of the relevant IHL". this proposal seemed to be gaining the support of many states.
- should the committments undertaken in relevant UN conferences and summits be taken into consideration as a basis for the review?
-> no consensus could be found on this question.
II) Principles and Objectives
- participation of all stakeholders, including NGOs and national HR institutions:
-> apparently this issue is not really the priority of the states, and they seem to agree more or less on the draft by the facilitator.
- should the UPR take into account the level of development and specificities of countries?
-> almost all countries agree on this formulation, however, especially the western and GRULAC states want the whole paragraph to be moved to the point V) entitled "Outcome of the UPR".
III) Periodicity and Order of Review
- periodicity of review: 4 or 5 years?
-> Western as well as GRULAC countries support a 4-year periodicity, while the NAM countries, led by Cuba, as well as the US support a 5-year periodicity.
- question of the basis for the review: an obligatory report or a questionnaire?
-> many countries oppose the idea of an obligatory report since this would add more work on the already burdened countries.
- question of involvement of experts and rapporteurs:
-> Cuba on behalf on NAM made it very clear that they will accept neither experts nor rapporteurs, whereas the western group is quite in favour of this idea.
Due to a lack of time, the meeting had to be suspended. the remaining issues of this non-paper will be taken up in the next informal meeting on UPR.
Points of discussion:
I) Basis of the review:
- should international humanitarian law (IHL) constitute a basis for the review?
-> Cuba (on behalf of NAM) wants IHL to be considered in all cases. Germany (on behalf of the EU) and other western states only want IHL to be considered when relevant (thus in armed conflict) while Human rights law still applies as a lex specialis. Switzerland proposed a change of wording for this issue, namely: "in situations where IHL is applicable, HR law shall be applied in the light of the relevant IHL". this proposal seemed to be gaining the support of many states.
- should the committments undertaken in relevant UN conferences and summits be taken into consideration as a basis for the review?
-> no consensus could be found on this question.
II) Principles and Objectives
- participation of all stakeholders, including NGOs and national HR institutions:
-> apparently this issue is not really the priority of the states, and they seem to agree more or less on the draft by the facilitator.
- should the UPR take into account the level of development and specificities of countries?
-> almost all countries agree on this formulation, however, especially the western and GRULAC states want the whole paragraph to be moved to the point V) entitled "Outcome of the UPR".
III) Periodicity and Order of Review
- periodicity of review: 4 or 5 years?
-> Western as well as GRULAC countries support a 4-year periodicity, while the NAM countries, led by Cuba, as well as the US support a 5-year periodicity.
- question of the basis for the review: an obligatory report or a questionnaire?
-> many countries oppose the idea of an obligatory report since this would add more work on the already burdened countries.
- question of involvement of experts and rapporteurs:
-> Cuba on behalf on NAM made it very clear that they will accept neither experts nor rapporteurs, whereas the western group is quite in favour of this idea.
Due to a lack of time, the meeting had to be suspended. the remaining issues of this non-paper will be taken up in the next informal meeting on UPR.
NAM Meeting, 19 March 07, 9 am, ALG
This meeting was convened to discuss the three draft decisions entitled: “Human Rights and unilateral coercive measures”, “Enhancement of international cooperation in the field of Human Rights” and “Right to development”.
These three decisions had been postponed from the third Session of the Council of Human Rights to the fourth Session.
The present members accepted the first draft decision (Human Rights and unilateral coercive measures) unanimously and added only the reference to the last report presented by the Secretary General in the first paragraph, third line in the brackets.
Regarding the second draft there were no objections neither. They accepted the updated version.
There were more discussions about the draft resolution on the right to development:
The ambassador of Egypt put very much emphasis on the term “Takes note” on the second paragraph. He wished instead to “the Human Rights Council … welcomes the report of the Intergovernmental Working Group on the Right to Development at its eighth session”. For him, this was very important because if leaving “takes note”, this would mean that draft would not correspond to what was decided in the last Working Group. He argued that NAM would lack of credibility because they joined a consensus there.
Some delegations tried to relativise this consensus question and argued that writing “welcoming the report” would be much more legally binding. But the ambassador of Egypt insisted very much that if they wanted or not, NAM joined the consensus and therefore they had to change “takes note” to “welcomes”.
For South Africa, it was very important that the work done on this question would bear in mind that the final objective is to establish a Convention on the Right to development.
All the delegations agreed on this point that they want to say clearly that all this is a roadmap to a Convention on the Rights to Development.
In the end, they decided to establish a new draft text which will circulate soon and they will convene on Wednesday, 21 March at 9 am for further discussions.
These three decisions had been postponed from the third Session of the Council of Human Rights to the fourth Session.
The present members accepted the first draft decision (Human Rights and unilateral coercive measures) unanimously and added only the reference to the last report presented by the Secretary General in the first paragraph, third line in the brackets.
Regarding the second draft there were no objections neither. They accepted the updated version.
There were more discussions about the draft resolution on the right to development:
The ambassador of Egypt put very much emphasis on the term “Takes note” on the second paragraph. He wished instead to “the Human Rights Council … welcomes the report of the Intergovernmental Working Group on the Right to Development at its eighth session”. For him, this was very important because if leaving “takes note”, this would mean that draft would not correspond to what was decided in the last Working Group. He argued that NAM would lack of credibility because they joined a consensus there.
Some delegations tried to relativise this consensus question and argued that writing “welcoming the report” would be much more legally binding. But the ambassador of Egypt insisted very much that if they wanted or not, NAM joined the consensus and therefore they had to change “takes note” to “welcomes”.
For South Africa, it was very important that the work done on this question would bear in mind that the final objective is to establish a Convention on the Right to development.
All the delegations agreed on this point that they want to say clearly that all this is a roadmap to a Convention on the Rights to Development.
In the end, they decided to establish a new draft text which will circulate soon and they will convene on Wednesday, 21 March at 9 am for further discussions.
vendredi 16 mars 2007
HCR 16.03.07:THE REPORT on the High-Level Mission on the situation of human rights in Darfur pursuant to HRC decision S-4/101. By Corinne
10 a.m. to 1 p.m.
The report has be done by :Pr Jody WILLIAMS (head of the high level mission), Mart NUTT, Pr Bertrand RAMCHARAM, Dc Sima SAMAR and Patrice TONDA.
Ms Williams presented the report:
“The High-Level Mission has succeeded in carrying out tasks mandated to it under Human Right Council Decision.(…) In our recommendations, we have called upon the international community to take urgent action to protect the people of Darfur. We have respectfully proposed that this Council address these violations, establish a special mechanism to monitor the situation and press for protection and accountability, and support the establishment of an independent national human rights commission to further protection on the ground We have recommended that the General Assembly compile a list of foreign companies whose activities have an adverse impact on human right in Darfur. We have called on the international community to ensure the effective protection of civilians in Darfur by deploying the proposed peacekeeping/protection force (…)We have called on the Government of the Sudan to respect its international obligation by admitting the proposed UN/AU force (…) The Government should hold perpetrators to account, facilitate the safe return of refugees and IDPs, and ensure compensation for victims(…). The Human Rights Council must take action to alleviate their suffering and give people of Darfur hope for the future.”
Now the Chairman gives the floor to the Sudan:
The Council did not achieve to not be politicized. There is a conspiracy against the Sudan. This report is unfair. The members were not impartial. They estimate the need of Sudan from an other country and they did not come to Sudan. The mission accredit the one who destroy the infrastructure, the government’s project.
The Sudan did not give s visa for one of the member or the mission because he had done his opinion before he went to Darfur.
This report must be excluded and the council should not discuss and approves it.
The Chairman gave the floor to the delegations. 32 express their opinion. Some of them recognize the report and others reject it.
The one which accept the report are:
The European Union, Zambia, Japan, Ghana, Argentina, Korea, Canada, Senegal, Mexico, Switzerland and Brazil.
Their arguments are that the report is a good report and the situation is extremely urgent. The council has to act. The credibility of the Council is in play here.
The one which reject it are:
The countries of the “League of Arab States”, The countries of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, The Asian group, Bangladesh, China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Cuba, Malaysia, India, Azerbaijan, Bahrain,
Their arguments are that the report is suspect: The mission did not go the Sudan but to the Chad and that the reason why one of the member of the mission gave up, because go to the Chad was not his mission. An other member of the mission took publicly a position before he did the mission. He accused Sudan of war crimes.
The report has be done by :Pr Jody WILLIAMS (head of the high level mission), Mart NUTT, Pr Bertrand RAMCHARAM, Dc Sima SAMAR and Patrice TONDA.
Ms Williams presented the report:
“The High-Level Mission has succeeded in carrying out tasks mandated to it under Human Right Council Decision.(…) In our recommendations, we have called upon the international community to take urgent action to protect the people of Darfur. We have respectfully proposed that this Council address these violations, establish a special mechanism to monitor the situation and press for protection and accountability, and support the establishment of an independent national human rights commission to further protection on the ground We have recommended that the General Assembly compile a list of foreign companies whose activities have an adverse impact on human right in Darfur. We have called on the international community to ensure the effective protection of civilians in Darfur by deploying the proposed peacekeeping/protection force (…)We have called on the Government of the Sudan to respect its international obligation by admitting the proposed UN/AU force (…) The Government should hold perpetrators to account, facilitate the safe return of refugees and IDPs, and ensure compensation for victims(…). The Human Rights Council must take action to alleviate their suffering and give people of Darfur hope for the future.”
Now the Chairman gives the floor to the Sudan:
The Council did not achieve to not be politicized. There is a conspiracy against the Sudan. This report is unfair. The members were not impartial. They estimate the need of Sudan from an other country and they did not come to Sudan. The mission accredit the one who destroy the infrastructure, the government’s project.
The Sudan did not give s visa for one of the member or the mission because he had done his opinion before he went to Darfur.
This report must be excluded and the council should not discuss and approves it.
The Chairman gave the floor to the delegations. 32 express their opinion. Some of them recognize the report and others reject it.
The one which accept the report are:
The European Union, Zambia, Japan, Ghana, Argentina, Korea, Canada, Senegal, Mexico, Switzerland and Brazil.
Their arguments are that the report is a good report and the situation is extremely urgent. The council has to act. The credibility of the Council is in play here.
The one which reject it are:
The countries of the “League of Arab States”, The countries of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, The Asian group, Bangladesh, China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Cuba, Malaysia, India, Azerbaijan, Bahrain,
Their arguments are that the report is suspect: The mission did not go the Sudan but to the Chad and that the reason why one of the member of the mission gave up, because go to the Chad was not his mission. An other member of the mission took publicly a position before he did the mission. He accused Sudan of war crimes.
HR Council, 15 march 2007, morning, ALG
The Human Rights Council condluded its interactive debate with High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour concerning her annual report she presented the day before.
Afterwards each facilitator of the 6 working groups ( working group on the Universal Periodic Review, on the Special Procedures, on the Expert Advice Mechanism, on the Complaints Mechanism, on the Agenda and on Methods of Work and Rules of Procedure) presented a report or a non-paper to communicate at which stage of work the Council is.
This presentation was followed by the plenary discussion
Afterwards each facilitator of the 6 working groups ( working group on the Universal Periodic Review, on the Special Procedures, on the Expert Advice Mechanism, on the Complaints Mechanism, on the Agenda and on Methods of Work and Rules of Procedure) presented a report or a non-paper to communicate at which stage of work the Council is.
This presentation was followed by the plenary discussion
jeudi 15 mars 2007
NAM MEETING by Corinne
1) Sudan Paper:
The Sudan brief the other representatives on the situation in the Soudan.
The Sudans is totally opposed to the reports. According to it these reports are dictated. That is not the High level’s mission moreover the mission did not visit the country herself.
This procedure have to be replace and a report will be study and proposed.
The President of the council know the Sudan’s position about it.
Algeria in the name of the African group:
Many technical problem deviate fron the goal of the mission: Making an assessment about the situation on Sudan. Because of that the African group can accept the reports.
2) The 2 resolutions endure by the movement: resolution L18 and resolution L14.
According to the Chairman the countries don’t have to support the both resolutions but they will lost if they do not.
India:
Do not adopt the both text.
Egypt, South Africa, Venezuela, Bangladesh, Morocco, Algeria, Sudan:
Support the both resolutions.
The Sudan brief the other representatives on the situation in the Soudan.
The Sudans is totally opposed to the reports. According to it these reports are dictated. That is not the High level’s mission moreover the mission did not visit the country herself.
This procedure have to be replace and a report will be study and proposed.
The President of the council know the Sudan’s position about it.
Algeria in the name of the African group:
Many technical problem deviate fron the goal of the mission: Making an assessment about the situation on Sudan. Because of that the African group can accept the reports.
2) The 2 resolutions endure by the movement: resolution L18 and resolution L14.
According to the Chairman the countries don’t have to support the both resolutions but they will lost if they do not.
India:
Do not adopt the both text.
Egypt, South Africa, Venezuela, Bangladesh, Morocco, Algeria, Sudan:
Support the both resolutions.
Follow-Up to decisions of the Human Rights Council
Follow-Up to decisions of the Human Rights Council
Report by Benedikt Kaelin
Human Rights Council, 4th session, report from the 15.3.2007
Palais des Nations, salle XVII, 15.00 – 18.00
1. Replies of the mission’s rapport Visit to Darfur (presentation of Jody Williams on the morning of 15.3.2007), mandated by the HRC decision S-4/101
Short résumé: The debate on this afternoon was mainly around the question if the rapport presented by Ms. Jody Williams, chair-rapporteur of the high-level mission to Darfur, should be considered and what shall be its value.
Various members and member groups of the HRC now think, that the rapport is therefore not worth of being considered (mainly Arab League member states, Cuba, China, etc). According to them, the mission has exceeded its competences by visiting Ethiopia and Tchad and they reproach impartiality, lack of transparency and bias to the mission.
Western and Latin American countries mainly consider the rapport as being of great importance and call for action/implementation. They also complain about the increasing trend of lack of cooperation of concerned states and the therefore risk of a diminishing role of HRC decisions. (statements by Peru, Uruguay, Philippines, Czech Republic, Chile
Most interesting arguments and proposals (personal selection):
Liechtenstein
Asks about a list of foreign companies that have an adverse impact on the HR situation in Darfur.
Cameroon
Situation in Darfur is very serious and calls for urgent action of the international community. Rights of women and children are seriously jeopardized. Intolerable situation. High risk of destabilization of other regions in Africa. Shortcomings in the constitution of the high-level mission. African union has decided to provide a system of sending troops. HRC should not stand indifferent vis-à-vis the situation in Darfur.
League of Arab States
Establishment of the mission is detrimental to the HRC. World should be able to enjoy security. Ensure peace and security with the EU and the AU. Complex situation in Darfur, cannot talk about it. Many economic and security issues.
Iran
Willingness of the Sudan to cooperate. High-level not able to fulfil its mandate as stipulated. High-level mission has not visited Sudan as previewed. Outcome of the mission appear to face several problems. Credibility of the report seriously challenged, underlying conceptual confusion. Delegation unable to comment on the contain of the report.
Belarus
Mission has serious shortcomings, in no way biased as technical shortcomings. Serious political mistake. Discussion is not going to serve the interests of HR in the region.
Portugal
Report presents graveness and seriousness of situation in Darfur. Suffering of the people in Darfur cannot be ignored because of political bias. Victims must be protected. Work in a constructive way with the government of Sudan.
Palestine
Not merely talking about HR. Arguments driven by political arguments. Unprecedent media attendance. Problem: Sudan has oil, but Palestine has also oil, but OLIVE OIL!! (applause) Sudan is large, Palestine is not.. weak against the strong. Double standards. Citation of Shakespeare. (again applause)
Jordan
Mission: impartial and independent sources. Learn from the mistakes, not lament. Mission has chosen to deviate from its original mandate, that of fact-finding. Report should be withheld from consideration. But this should not hinder from looking at the Sudanese situation. Sudan is an LDC, Darfur people are Sudanese people. Give them support to handle with their situation.
Comments of NGOs
United Nations Watch
Disappointed by the statements by Arab League, OIC, various other states. Contrary to Israel, in this report the team reported violations by all sides. Sudan was given fair treatment. Sudan has not cooperated.
Amnesty International
High-level mission’s findings. Government of Sudan has primary responsibility for happenings in Darfur. One level of the high-level being biased?? Refusal of Sudan marks the 4th kind of refusal since the creation of the HRC. AI is deeply concerned that the negative attitude of states is contributing to a negative image of the HRC.
Members of the high-level mission reply
Mart Nutt, Estonian Parliament representative:
Solidarity more important than HR violation? HRC has to be critical. Solidarity to victims, not to violators
Patrice Tonda, Ambassador representative of Gabon:
Went to Addis Abeba, to collect information and to Tchad, the report was negotiated intensively.
Dr. Sima Samaar, Special Rapporteur to Sudan
1. there is a problem in Darfur, nobody denies
2. no military solution in Darfur
3. call on Arab countries to solve the problem, not to ignore
4. thanks to the government of Sudan for collaboration with HER mandate
Nobel Peace Laureate Jody Williams (chair-rapporteur of high-level mission):
- legality: mission was conscious of legality. Every action was within the mandate
- objectivity: if there are real doubts about the impartiality of the mission: why not send exactly the same mission to Palestine?
- Credibility: it is about the HRC’s credibility, not the mission’s! They only acted in good faith
2. Framework of follow-up to any other decisions taken
The resolution about the rights for indigenous people is postponed at the GA in New York. Norway wants to accelerate the process. Algeria sees no point in this idea. What further action should be taken? De Alba reminds the delegations that the Council should follow it’s own decisions. Various NGOs hint on the necessity of adoption of this resolution.
3. Varia
- This afternoon, some spontaneous reactions (applause) were shown by various delegations. Ambassador de Alba demands the delegations not to show their attachment to state statements in such an obvious way.
- The meeting of Monday morning on 1503 procedure will be closed, only members of the HRC participate
- Meetings next week will last 1.30h in the morning and midday. New schedule: 8.30-10.00 and 13.30-15.00. More informations will follow.
mercredi 14 mars 2007
HRC- March 14th (Afternoon)-LR
Human Rights Council Regular Meeting
Wednesday 14 March 2007, 3pm-6pm
High Commissioner annual report and interactive dialogue
The High Commissioner, Mrs. Louise Arbour, presented her annual report. An interactive dialogue followed her presentation. The report gave an overview of the activities of the High Commissioner’s Office.
Before moving on to this, Mrs Arbour, mentioned two crucial aspects of the institutional reform: the UPR and the review of the mandates of special procedures and their working methods. The High Commissioner said that in analysing each situation in an impartial manner on the basis of objective criterias the UPR shall answer the criticism of selectivity which were made in the past to the Commission. Mrs Arbour said that she believe that it would be important to involve civil society, NGOs and national institutions for human rights in the process. These bodies would be best placed to reveal violations of human rights, to judge progress accomplished and propose corrective measures if necessary.
Mrs Arbour then gave some information about the activities of her Office. The national offices have been complemented by regional presences (for e.g.: in Panama, the Office is currently negotiating the opening of new regional bureau in central Asia, western Africa and north Africa and a centre for formation and documentation for South East Asia and the Arab countries in Qatar). In the annual report there are also a report on the operations of the Office in Uganda, Guatemala and Nepal.
Mrs Arbour then talked about two essential topics: economic, social and cultural rights and the question of equal rights for women.
Mrs Arbour said that her Office attach great importance to the fight against poverty and work with several partners, including the World Bank, to identify appropriate measures to implement the right to development. The Office try to demonstrate the intimate link between extreme poverty and human rights violations. Mrs Arbour underscored that poverty is not purely a question of a lack of income or material goods but it is also a lack of opportunity and security. Moreover poverty is a question of power in the public sphere as well as in the family.
Mrs Arbour ended saying that women are particularly vulnerable not only to the violations of their economic, social and cultural rights but also to poverty, discrimination and violence. The High Commissioner said that she has taken the commitment of putting the question of women’ rights at the centre of the work of her Office.
For the interactive dialog please refer to the extranet.
Wednesday 14 March 2007, 3pm-6pm
High Commissioner annual report and interactive dialogue
The High Commissioner, Mrs. Louise Arbour, presented her annual report. An interactive dialogue followed her presentation. The report gave an overview of the activities of the High Commissioner’s Office.
Before moving on to this, Mrs Arbour, mentioned two crucial aspects of the institutional reform: the UPR and the review of the mandates of special procedures and their working methods. The High Commissioner said that in analysing each situation in an impartial manner on the basis of objective criterias the UPR shall answer the criticism of selectivity which were made in the past to the Commission. Mrs Arbour said that she believe that it would be important to involve civil society, NGOs and national institutions for human rights in the process. These bodies would be best placed to reveal violations of human rights, to judge progress accomplished and propose corrective measures if necessary.
Mrs Arbour then gave some information about the activities of her Office. The national offices have been complemented by regional presences (for e.g.: in Panama, the Office is currently negotiating the opening of new regional bureau in central Asia, western Africa and north Africa and a centre for formation and documentation for South East Asia and the Arab countries in Qatar). In the annual report there are also a report on the operations of the Office in Uganda, Guatemala and Nepal.
Mrs Arbour then talked about two essential topics: economic, social and cultural rights and the question of equal rights for women.
Mrs Arbour said that her Office attach great importance to the fight against poverty and work with several partners, including the World Bank, to identify appropriate measures to implement the right to development. The Office try to demonstrate the intimate link between extreme poverty and human rights violations. Mrs Arbour underscored that poverty is not purely a question of a lack of income or material goods but it is also a lack of opportunity and security. Moreover poverty is a question of power in the public sphere as well as in the family.
Mrs Arbour ended saying that women are particularly vulnerable not only to the violations of their economic, social and cultural rights but also to poverty, discrimination and violence. The High Commissioner said that she has taken the commitment of putting the question of women’ rights at the centre of the work of her Office.
For the interactive dialog please refer to the extranet.
HRC- March 14th-LR
Human Rights Council Regular Meeting
Wednesday, 14 March 2007, 10am-1pm
High Level Segment (cont’d)
The following countries made a statement: Colombia, Ivory Cost, Iraq, Ireland, Kenya, Denmark, Uzbekistan, Yemen, Mexico, Lithuania, Maldives, Korea, Slovak Republic, Honduras, Chad, Benin and Congo.
For the detailed statement of each countries please refer to the extranet.
Wednesday, 14 March 2007, 10am-1pm
High Level Segment (cont’d)
The following countries made a statement: Colombia, Ivory Cost, Iraq, Ireland, Kenya, Denmark, Uzbekistan, Yemen, Mexico, Lithuania, Maldives, Korea, Slovak Republic, Honduras, Chad, Benin and Congo.
For the detailed statement of each countries please refer to the extranet.
HRC- March 13th (Afternoon)- LR
Human Rights Council Regular Meeting
Tuesday, 13 March 2007, 3 pm-6 pm
High Level Segment (cont’d)
The following countries made a statement : Lesotho, Latvia, Nepal, Nigeria, Togo, Romania, Italy, Senegal, Cameroon, Azerbaijan, Sudan, Turkey, Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Russian Federation, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Cyprus, Angola, Mauritania and Viet Nam.
All the countries recognised the importance of the creation of the Human Rights Council and emphasised the need to break from the tradition of the Human Rights Commission and the politicisation of its work. The need for the strict implementation of the HRC’s decisions and the building of the Council’s institutions were also among the issues raised by a series of delegates.
Themes such as the right for development, rights of vulnerable groups including indigenous people, migrants, women, refugees, IDPs and national minorities, the death penalty and contemporary form of slavery were evocated by a series of dignitaries.
Specific countries’ situation were addressed, inter alia the human rights’ situation in the Middle East, the crisis in Darfur, the situation of human rights in Burma and in the DPRK, the crisis in Lebanon, the situation in Iraq, the recent coup in Fiji and the violent repression of protestors in Zimbabwe two days ago.
For the detailed statement of each country please refer to the extranet:
http://portal.ohchr.org/portal/page/portal/OHCHRExtranet on “Oral statements”.
User name: Hrc extranet
Password : 1session
Right of reply
The right of reply was exercised by the following countries: Iran (on the human rights’ situation in Iran following concerns expressed by Sweden and France), Sudan (on the issue of the high-level mission to Darfur), Colombia (on the frontier situation with Ecuador and the eradication of illegal crops), the DPRK (on the abduction of prisoners as denounced by Japan), Morocco (on the question of Southern Sahara as denounced by Algeria), Turkey (on the events that took place in 1950 following a statement made by Armenia), Belarus (on the human rights’ situation in Belarus following concerns expressed by France and Sweden), Japan, Algeria, Sweden, DPRK(2nd right of reply), Morocco (2nd), Japan(2nd), Algeria (2nd).
For the detailed statement of each countries please refer to the extranet:
http://portal.ohchr.org/portal/page/portal/OHCHRExtranet on “Oral statements”
User name: Hrc extranet
Password : 1session
Tuesday, 13 March 2007, 3 pm-6 pm
High Level Segment (cont’d)
The following countries made a statement : Lesotho, Latvia, Nepal, Nigeria, Togo, Romania, Italy, Senegal, Cameroon, Azerbaijan, Sudan, Turkey, Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Russian Federation, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Cyprus, Angola, Mauritania and Viet Nam.
All the countries recognised the importance of the creation of the Human Rights Council and emphasised the need to break from the tradition of the Human Rights Commission and the politicisation of its work. The need for the strict implementation of the HRC’s decisions and the building of the Council’s institutions were also among the issues raised by a series of delegates.
Themes such as the right for development, rights of vulnerable groups including indigenous people, migrants, women, refugees, IDPs and national minorities, the death penalty and contemporary form of slavery were evocated by a series of dignitaries.
Specific countries’ situation were addressed, inter alia the human rights’ situation in the Middle East, the crisis in Darfur, the situation of human rights in Burma and in the DPRK, the crisis in Lebanon, the situation in Iraq, the recent coup in Fiji and the violent repression of protestors in Zimbabwe two days ago.
For the detailed statement of each country please refer to the extranet:
http://portal.ohchr.org/portal/page/portal/OHCHRExtranet on “Oral statements”.
User name: Hrc extranet
Password : 1session
Right of reply
The right of reply was exercised by the following countries: Iran (on the human rights’ situation in Iran following concerns expressed by Sweden and France), Sudan (on the issue of the high-level mission to Darfur), Colombia (on the frontier situation with Ecuador and the eradication of illegal crops), the DPRK (on the abduction of prisoners as denounced by Japan), Morocco (on the question of Southern Sahara as denounced by Algeria), Turkey (on the events that took place in 1950 following a statement made by Armenia), Belarus (on the human rights’ situation in Belarus following concerns expressed by France and Sweden), Japan, Algeria, Sweden, DPRK(2nd right of reply), Morocco (2nd), Japan(2nd), Algeria (2nd).
For the detailed statement of each countries please refer to the extranet:
http://portal.ohchr.org/portal/page/portal/OHCHRExtranet on “Oral statements”
User name: Hrc extranet
Password : 1session
Consideration of reports – OHCHR, Reports of the intergovernmental WGs (Right to development, Durban Declaration)
Consideration of reports – OHCHR, Reports of the intergovernmental WGs (Right to development, Durban Declaration)
Report by Benedikt Kaelin
Human Rights Council, 4th session, report from the 14.3.2007
Palais des Nations, salle XVII, 15.00 – 18.00
Comments of concerned states :
Afghanistan :
Thanks for the efforts, they condemn the kidnapping of a journalist
Cambodia:
Reduction of poverty, free elections, local democracy, decentralisation of power, reforn of the legal system are all objectives.
Colombia:
State takes note of recommendations
Cyprus:
Pressing need for implementation of HR in Cyprus. Division of the Island: obstacle for implementation of HR.
Israel:
Judicious use of HC bureau
Palestine:
Why is the representant of the Israeli apartheid regime even among us? Problem of pregnant women giving birth at checkpoints.
Comments of Member states:
The majority welcomed the outcomes of the working groups. Several questions were posed to Mme Louise Arbour, among them the questions, which measures she was going to take in order to celebrate the birthday. Question did also arise about the representation in OHCHR.
Mme Arbour than continued to present the OHCHR-report. Reports in Afghanistan, Cambodia, Colombia. Composition of the OHCHR should change in favour of a better representation.
- Chairperson-Rapporteur of the WG on the right to development, Mr.Salama:
There is know an intellectual clarity in the concept. Wider range of existing partnerships.
4 points:
- growing political commitment from all regional groups.
- high quality of the Task Force
- Wider scope of participants
- support of the secretariat
Framework is constructed together. The difficulty will rather lie in maintaining it.
- Chairperson-rapporteur of the WG on the effective implementation of the Durban Declaration, Mr. Martabit.
States are generally interested in the report and there’s not much debate.
Report by Benedikt Kaelin
Human Rights Council, 4th session, report from the 14.3.2007
Palais des Nations, salle XVII, 15.00 – 18.00
Comments of concerned states :
Afghanistan :
Thanks for the efforts, they condemn the kidnapping of a journalist
Cambodia:
Reduction of poverty, free elections, local democracy, decentralisation of power, reforn of the legal system are all objectives.
Colombia:
State takes note of recommendations
Cyprus:
Pressing need for implementation of HR in Cyprus. Division of the Island: obstacle for implementation of HR.
Israel:
Judicious use of HC bureau
Palestine:
Why is the representant of the Israeli apartheid regime even among us? Problem of pregnant women giving birth at checkpoints.
Comments of Member states:
The majority welcomed the outcomes of the working groups. Several questions were posed to Mme Louise Arbour, among them the questions, which measures she was going to take in order to celebrate the birthday. Question did also arise about the representation in OHCHR.
Mme Arbour than continued to present the OHCHR-report. Reports in Afghanistan, Cambodia, Colombia. Composition of the OHCHR should change in favour of a better representation.
- Chairperson-Rapporteur of the WG on the right to development, Mr.Salama:
There is know an intellectual clarity in the concept. Wider range of existing partnerships.
4 points:
- growing political commitment from all regional groups.
- high quality of the Task Force
- Wider scope of participants
- support of the secretariat
Framework is constructed together. The difficulty will rather lie in maintaining it.
- Chairperson-rapporteur of the WG on the effective implementation of the Durban Declaration, Mr. Martabit.
States are generally interested in the report and there’s not much debate.
mardi 13 mars 2007
HRC - March 13th - AB
The High-Level Segment continued but was quickly interrupted by a sonorization problem. Almost two hours were lost and we had to move to room XVII.
You can find the transcription of the statements here :
www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/4session/130307.htm
You can find the transcription of the statements here :
www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/4session/130307.htm
lundi 12 mars 2007
HRC - March 12th AM - SK
Human Rights Council regular meeting
First session: from 10 am to 1 pm.
1. Opening of the session:
Speakers:
- Luis Alfonso de Alba President of the Council:
o Expressed his concern concerning the effectiveness of the council
o Considers deplorable the lack of cooperation from nations who refused access cooperation.
- Secretary General (on video): short speech concentrates on the challenge of building a better institution.
- High Commissioner for Human Rights: highlights the importance of special procedures and deplores the “region against region” mechanism.
2. High-level segment
Speakers: Switzerland, Gabon, Germany (in the name of the European Union), Luxembourg, Indonesia, Jordan, Tunisia, Philippines, Sri Lanka, The Netherlands, Sweden, The Organization of the Islamic Conference, the Community of Democracies and Cuba.
Every state and Organization recognized the importance of Human Rights and their commitment to the Human Rights Council. It would be too long to sum up all speeches, therefore, for the detailed statements of each country please refer to the extranet:
- http://portal.ohchr.org/portal/page/portal/OHCHRExtranet on “Oral statements”.
User name: Hrc extranet
Password : 1session
The minister of Foreign Affairs of Sweden H.E. Carl Bildt, mentioned Cuba and China, amongst others, while talking about HR violations. Both Nations replied quite harshly against such accusations.
Cuba asked for the right to reply and held a somewhat ruthless discourse against Sweden. They stated that with such hatred this council could not work, and that the Swedish “should have stayed home.”
China also reacted to the Swedish discourse by highlighting that there are no agreed consensus on what HR are substantively, and reminded that they were categorically against the idea of imposing a single view on others.
Moreover, it is unacceptable for them that other nations link the Olympic Games to HR issues. They state that no country should take this occasion to politicize The Olympic Games. China also reminded that death penalty is entirely compatible with civil and political rights since it is only used in extreme cases. However they assured that the death penalty will be reviewed this year in order to limit, to reduce and ultimately abolish its application.
First session: from 10 am to 1 pm.
1. Opening of the session:
Speakers:
- Luis Alfonso de Alba President of the Council:
o Expressed his concern concerning the effectiveness of the council
o Considers deplorable the lack of cooperation from nations who refused access cooperation.
- Secretary General (on video): short speech concentrates on the challenge of building a better institution.
- High Commissioner for Human Rights: highlights the importance of special procedures and deplores the “region against region” mechanism.
2. High-level segment
Speakers: Switzerland, Gabon, Germany (in the name of the European Union), Luxembourg, Indonesia, Jordan, Tunisia, Philippines, Sri Lanka, The Netherlands, Sweden, The Organization of the Islamic Conference, the Community of Democracies and Cuba.
Every state and Organization recognized the importance of Human Rights and their commitment to the Human Rights Council. It would be too long to sum up all speeches, therefore, for the detailed statements of each country please refer to the extranet:
- http://portal.ohchr.org/portal/page/portal/OHCHRExtranet on “Oral statements”.
User name: Hrc extranet
Password : 1session
The minister of Foreign Affairs of Sweden H.E. Carl Bildt, mentioned Cuba and China, amongst others, while talking about HR violations. Both Nations replied quite harshly against such accusations.
Cuba asked for the right to reply and held a somewhat ruthless discourse against Sweden. They stated that with such hatred this council could not work, and that the Swedish “should have stayed home.”
China also reacted to the Swedish discourse by highlighting that there are no agreed consensus on what HR are substantively, and reminded that they were categorically against the idea of imposing a single view on others.
Moreover, it is unacceptable for them that other nations link the Olympic Games to HR issues. They state that no country should take this occasion to politicize The Olympic Games. China also reminded that death penalty is entirely compatible with civil and political rights since it is only used in extreme cases. However they assured that the death penalty will be reviewed this year in order to limit, to reduce and ultimately abolish its application.
Report of the 4th session HRC, 12.03, afternoon, EAD
During the afternoon, many delegations read their statement about the 4th session of the Human Right Council. The recurrent themes were the efficiency, transparency and strenght of the new system. This transition period is the opportunity to discuss in detail the mechanisms and procedures to be able to go beyond the difficulties of the former Comission. Some countries like Serbia and Ecuador spoke a little bit more about the problems in their countries specifically. The representant of Serbia was especially direct about his meanings regarding Kosovo.
For further information, have a look at the extranet of the Human Right Council. The statements will be download soon.
For further information, have a look at the extranet of the Human Right Council. The statements will be download soon.
vendredi 9 mars 2007
WG on DDPA - March 9th - AB
Working Group on the effective implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action – Fifth session – Part I - March 9th, 2007 (11pm-13pm)
The Chairman, Mr. Matabit, had prepared a draft containing conclusions and recommendations elaborated during this week, which was handed out to the delegations. The consolidated paper will be issued after further discussion in September, when Part II of the session takes place.
The delegations examined the draft for more than an hour and then the Chairman opened the floor. The most important points mentioned were that :
- gender based discrimination be added to racism, racial discrimination, and xenophobia in §1 which lists what National Plans of Action fight against (Mexico, Switzerland, Norway)
- §2 which states that “it is essential for States to recognize the presence of vulnerable groups…” be completed by “and individuals” ( Germany on behalf of EU, China and Mexico)
- §9 which expresses the concern of the African Group that insufficient support is being given to the Anti-Discrimination Unit, should be suppressed because the report is supposed to reflect a consensus reached by the whole working group and not the opinion of regional groups (Germany on behalf of EU, Norway). Predictably, South Africa and China insist that it is retained.
The Chairman, Mr. Matabit, had prepared a draft containing conclusions and recommendations elaborated during this week, which was handed out to the delegations. The consolidated paper will be issued after further discussion in September, when Part II of the session takes place.
The delegations examined the draft for more than an hour and then the Chairman opened the floor. The most important points mentioned were that :
- gender based discrimination be added to racism, racial discrimination, and xenophobia in §1 which lists what National Plans of Action fight against (Mexico, Switzerland, Norway)
- §2 which states that “it is essential for States to recognize the presence of vulnerable groups…” be completed by “and individuals” ( Germany on behalf of EU, China and Mexico)
- §9 which expresses the concern of the African Group that insufficient support is being given to the Anti-Discrimination Unit, should be suppressed because the report is supposed to reflect a consensus reached by the whole working group and not the opinion of regional groups (Germany on behalf of EU, Norway). Predictably, South Africa and China insist that it is retained.
jeudi 8 mars 2007
WG on DDPA - March 8th - AB
Working Group on the effective implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action – Fifth session – Part I - March 8th, 2007 (3pm-6pm)
As an introduction to the afternoon meeting, the five experts made general remarks:
- Mr. Villalpando gives a speech about the evolution of international law
- Mrs. Goldschmidt said that §2 of DDPA should be made clearer. What is exactly implied by « multiple of aggravated forms of discrimination » ? Is sexual orientation included in the « other status » that can be subjected to discrimination ?
- Mr. Anwar insists on the importance of religion, how it is perceived and how groups can manipulate it in order to serve their political, economic or power interests. As we are in a period of Islamophobia and christianophobia since 09/11, it is very important that media promote messages of peace.
- Mrs. Petrova reminds the assembly of the basic principle of Human rights law : «Don’t do harm », which means that we should not undermine existing standards.
- Mr. Maluwa underlines the need to recognize and emphasize common grounds.
Then, delegations take the floor, expressing their points of view on the following subjects :
- Inclusion of sexual orientation and disabilities in the list of grounds subjected to discrimination in §2 DDPA. Egypt, South Africa, Nigeria and others are against it, while Belgium, UK and Switzerland support this proposition, explaining that any discrimination that leads to violence should be included.
- Importance of focussing on the victim (so called collective right are less important) is stressed by Belgium : When fighting discrimination based on religion, the purpose is not to protect the religion itself but the individual who believes in this religion.
- The delegate of Nigeria adds that the standards used to interpret the DDPA should include not only UN law but also regional law instruments. He also suggests that experts highlight good practises.
As an introduction to the afternoon meeting, the five experts made general remarks:
- Mr. Villalpando gives a speech about the evolution of international law
- Mrs. Goldschmidt said that §2 of DDPA should be made clearer. What is exactly implied by « multiple of aggravated forms of discrimination » ? Is sexual orientation included in the « other status » that can be subjected to discrimination ?
- Mr. Anwar insists on the importance of religion, how it is perceived and how groups can manipulate it in order to serve their political, economic or power interests. As we are in a period of Islamophobia and christianophobia since 09/11, it is very important that media promote messages of peace.
- Mrs. Petrova reminds the assembly of the basic principle of Human rights law : «Don’t do harm », which means that we should not undermine existing standards.
- Mr. Maluwa underlines the need to recognize and emphasize common grounds.
Then, delegations take the floor, expressing their points of view on the following subjects :
- Inclusion of sexual orientation and disabilities in the list of grounds subjected to discrimination in §2 DDPA. Egypt, South Africa, Nigeria and others are against it, while Belgium, UK and Switzerland support this proposition, explaining that any discrimination that leads to violence should be included.
- Importance of focussing on the victim (so called collective right are less important) is stressed by Belgium : When fighting discrimination based on religion, the purpose is not to protect the religion itself but the individual who believes in this religion.
- The delegate of Nigeria adds that the standards used to interpret the DDPA should include not only UN law but also regional law instruments. He also suggests that experts highlight good practises.
WG on the effective implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action.By Corinne
First part of the fifth session
8th of March 2007
10 am to 1 pm:
Item 7: Panel 2
Complementary international standards: preliminary exchange of views with five experts to produce a base document and to make concrete recommendations on the means avenues to bridge thes gap.
Introduction by the Chairman:
He presents the five experts:
- Ms. Goldschmitt from the Netherlands
- Ms. Petrova from Hungary
- M. Stafi Anwa from Indonesia
- M. Maluwa from South Africa
- M. Villalpando from Argentina
Introduction by the experts’ president, M. Villalpando:
Subjects which are most important:
- Racism manifestation
- Worse form and multiple form of racism
- Genocide
- Ethnical purification
- Incentive to racial hatred
- Racial profiling
Victim’s Group of racism:
- Religious group
- Refugee group
- Asylum seeker
- Stateless
- Migrant workers
- Persons displaced
- Community with common ascendance
- Autochthon population
- Populations under foreign occupation
- Other group
The expert’s president asks to the delegation why they had chosen these subjects and which are the most important for them.
The delegations take the floor:
Mexico:
For them the most important: Xenophobia, Worse form and multiple form of racism and autochthon population.
Many countries (Belgium, Britain, Brasil, Argentina, Switzerland) are agree to tell that:
The experts have to use the mechanism of the international law that we already have: The pact about civil and politic right and the CERD.
The racism is often mixed with other discrimination ( as sexual preference, hold persons, women..).
Egypt, Algeria in the name of the African group agreed:
Religious intolerance, under religious discrimination and incentive to religious hatred, are the strongest subject. That is a threat to the peace and to the international security. We need restricting rules.
The increased of the migration, the asylum seekers, the illegal immigrants and the refugee are also really important topics.
According to Egypt discrimination in accordance with sexual preference is no in the CERD and we do not have to about it here.
Bangladesh:
Stereotype, Incentive to religious hatred and religious profiling and intolerance linked with migration are strongest subject.
Norway, Sweden agreed:
The problem is the difference between the rules and their implementation.
The countries should be free to choose which subjects are important for them, like homophobia.
Corinne Nunes
8th of March 2007
10 am to 1 pm:
Item 7: Panel 2
Complementary international standards: preliminary exchange of views with five experts to produce a base document and to make concrete recommendations on the means avenues to bridge thes gap.
Introduction by the Chairman:
He presents the five experts:
- Ms. Goldschmitt from the Netherlands
- Ms. Petrova from Hungary
- M. Stafi Anwa from Indonesia
- M. Maluwa from South Africa
- M. Villalpando from Argentina
Introduction by the experts’ president, M. Villalpando:
Subjects which are most important:
- Racism manifestation
- Worse form and multiple form of racism
- Genocide
- Ethnical purification
- Incentive to racial hatred
- Racial profiling
Victim’s Group of racism:
- Religious group
- Refugee group
- Asylum seeker
- Stateless
- Migrant workers
- Persons displaced
- Community with common ascendance
- Autochthon population
- Populations under foreign occupation
- Other group
The expert’s president asks to the delegation why they had chosen these subjects and which are the most important for them.
The delegations take the floor:
Mexico:
For them the most important: Xenophobia, Worse form and multiple form of racism and autochthon population.
Many countries (Belgium, Britain, Brasil, Argentina, Switzerland) are agree to tell that:
The experts have to use the mechanism of the international law that we already have: The pact about civil and politic right and the CERD.
The racism is often mixed with other discrimination ( as sexual preference, hold persons, women..).
Egypt, Algeria in the name of the African group agreed:
Religious intolerance, under religious discrimination and incentive to religious hatred, are the strongest subject. That is a threat to the peace and to the international security. We need restricting rules.
The increased of the migration, the asylum seekers, the illegal immigrants and the refugee are also really important topics.
According to Egypt discrimination in accordance with sexual preference is no in the CERD and we do not have to about it here.
Bangladesh:
Stereotype, Incentive to religious hatred and religious profiling and intolerance linked with migration are strongest subject.
Norway, Sweden agreed:
The problem is the difference between the rules and their implementation.
The countries should be free to choose which subjects are important for them, like homophobia.
Corinne Nunes
mardi 6 mars 2007
WG on the effective implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action. by Corinne
First part of the fifth session
6th of March 2007
10 am to 1 pm:
ITEM 6: Panel 1 (continuation)
M. Mondeleares from Belgium:
He presented the Belgium action plan in detail:
First it must be a methodology to use the Directives from the European council’s secretariat:
1) Special institution
2) Working group inter ministerial to coordinate the redaction
3) Large consultation
4) Finalisation
5) Approbation and adoption
6) Publication and transmission
7) Follow-up and evaluation
Then there are 2 phases:
The project:
22 thematic fiches ( e.g. organised racism) they come from world conference and they have to be concretise in Belgium (in a legal context).
Concretisation:
It is doing by piloting group (persons from the 6 governments, every government is independent.)
M. Lattimer from the United Kingdom:
He began by examine more hold strategies that was use for discrimination against the community roma. They are still discriminated in many public places, at school and in the professional life.
Their national plan against racism:
6 fields have to be taken in consideration:
1) The recognition of the minority, information about them is essential
2) The participation, the minority community should participate to the politic life
3) Legal system has to be in place.
4) To complete the third point: Action programme with more specific measures are necessary
5) An evaluation of the objectives has to be made after a few times.
6) The implementation of execution organism of the programmes. That is an institutional effort. A budget is necessary.
Then the Chairman opens the floor.
The collect of information about the minority is controversial, many states see a danger about the “ventilated information”, the risk is that they can be use in an other field than the fight against discrimination. Be that as it may, everyone is agreeing to say that we need relevant indicators.
Corinne Nunes
6th of March 2007
10 am to 1 pm:
ITEM 6: Panel 1 (continuation)
M. Mondeleares from Belgium:
He presented the Belgium action plan in detail:
First it must be a methodology to use the Directives from the European council’s secretariat:
1) Special institution
2) Working group inter ministerial to coordinate the redaction
3) Large consultation
4) Finalisation
5) Approbation and adoption
6) Publication and transmission
7) Follow-up and evaluation
Then there are 2 phases:
The project:
22 thematic fiches ( e.g. organised racism) they come from world conference and they have to be concretise in Belgium (in a legal context).
Concretisation:
It is doing by piloting group (persons from the 6 governments, every government is independent.)
M. Lattimer from the United Kingdom:
He began by examine more hold strategies that was use for discrimination against the community roma. They are still discriminated in many public places, at school and in the professional life.
Their national plan against racism:
6 fields have to be taken in consideration:
1) The recognition of the minority, information about them is essential
2) The participation, the minority community should participate to the politic life
3) Legal system has to be in place.
4) To complete the third point: Action programme with more specific measures are necessary
5) An evaluation of the objectives has to be made after a few times.
6) The implementation of execution organism of the programmes. That is an institutional effort. A budget is necessary.
Then the Chairman opens the floor.
The collect of information about the minority is controversial, many states see a danger about the “ventilated information”, the risk is that they can be use in an other field than the fight against discrimination. Be that as it may, everyone is agreeing to say that we need relevant indicators.
Corinne Nunes
lundi 5 mars 2007
WG on the effective implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action. by Corinne
First part of the fifth session
5th of March 2007
10 am to 1 pm:
ITEM 1: opening of the session
Statement by High commissioner: he states that This WG contribute to the effective implementation or the Durban’s Action Programme. The adoption of norms is not sufficient to fight against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. In this WG we are going to examine national plans of action in combating racism.
The purpose of this WG is the discussion between the states and the research of toll for the concret realisation of the Durcan Declaration.
ITEM 2: election of Chairperson-Reporter
Election of Chairperson-Reporter: Argentina proposes the re-election of Juan Matabit from Chile, nobody objects.• Statement by M. Matabit: The racism is a threat for the democratie. Combating racism is an international and a national duty.
M. Matabit recalls that the WG has to continue in the respect of the consensus principle.
ITEM 3: Adoption of the Agenda
ITEM 4: Organization of work
The first part of the WG is the exam of the different national Action Plan. The different delegation will present what they have done as a part of Durban Declaration at national level.
The second is the elaboration of norms, for those five experts are going to intervene.
ITEM 5: General statements:
Exchange of information on participants’ implementation activities and debate on issues of general interest for the implementation process.
Algeria, in the name of the African group: The purposes aren’t achieve, violence‘s acts grow up in this part of the world. He proposes cooperation with international organism. He tells the fact that national plans need more means from the HCHR
German in the name of European country: They want independent expert. The norms can be only a tool to fight the racism.
Macedonia: They assure a protection of the Human Rights more strong. At school every ethnical group can follow the courses in their language.
Chili: The politic to fight the racism in Chile follows 3 axes:
1) Institutional: Implementation of governmental organism.
2) Public and citizen participation.
3) Communication, the purpose here is the promotion of the differents public actions.
Ecuator: the promotion oh Human right and democratie is done trough education.
In every speech 2 things are amplified: The fight against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance is a field fight and the willpower politic is essential.
Only 12 participants took the floor, the chairman is very surprised that for a so important subject no more states want to express their selves.
3 pm to 6 pm:
ITEM 6: Panel 1
Thematic analysis: on the role of national plans of actions in combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.
Presentation of the panellists:
M. Bessera from Mexico:
2 things are done in Mexico since 2000:
1) Diagnosis of the scourge by a study commission. The result is that in Mexico many persons are discriminated and as much discriminate.
2) Implementation of an institutional organ to fight the problem.
Modification of the constitution: Every discrimination are now forbidden.
The public politic follows 4 axes: -Education; -Health; -Work; -Justice Access.
But some problems stay: Every politic part is not agreed in front of this problem, all of them are not agreeing to fight discrimination. The budget allowed to this problem is not sufficient.
Mme Dahka from Hungarian:
In Hungary resolutions are proposed to increase the national program.
She spoke specially about the discrimination against the roma community in Europe.
She conclude saying that Indicators are essential, the objectives have to be specified and the government must allows enough resort. The political willpower is fundamental.
M. Rajkruma from India:
The coordination between different ministers is a point fundamental; when a new resolution is adopted by one the other should knows them.
He insists on the importance of the cultural side next the legal side.
The action program should use the strength of the visual in their diffusion.
Corinne Nunes
5th of March 2007
10 am to 1 pm:
ITEM 1: opening of the session
Statement by High commissioner: he states that This WG contribute to the effective implementation or the Durban’s Action Programme. The adoption of norms is not sufficient to fight against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. In this WG we are going to examine national plans of action in combating racism.
The purpose of this WG is the discussion between the states and the research of toll for the concret realisation of the Durcan Declaration.
ITEM 2: election of Chairperson-Reporter
Election of Chairperson-Reporter: Argentina proposes the re-election of Juan Matabit from Chile, nobody objects.• Statement by M. Matabit: The racism is a threat for the democratie. Combating racism is an international and a national duty.
M. Matabit recalls that the WG has to continue in the respect of the consensus principle.
ITEM 3: Adoption of the Agenda
ITEM 4: Organization of work
The first part of the WG is the exam of the different national Action Plan. The different delegation will present what they have done as a part of Durban Declaration at national level.
The second is the elaboration of norms, for those five experts are going to intervene.
ITEM 5: General statements:
Exchange of information on participants’ implementation activities and debate on issues of general interest for the implementation process.
Algeria, in the name of the African group: The purposes aren’t achieve, violence‘s acts grow up in this part of the world. He proposes cooperation with international organism. He tells the fact that national plans need more means from the HCHR
German in the name of European country: They want independent expert. The norms can be only a tool to fight the racism.
Macedonia: They assure a protection of the Human Rights more strong. At school every ethnical group can follow the courses in their language.
Chili: The politic to fight the racism in Chile follows 3 axes:
1) Institutional: Implementation of governmental organism.
2) Public and citizen participation.
3) Communication, the purpose here is the promotion of the differents public actions.
Ecuator: the promotion oh Human right and democratie is done trough education.
In every speech 2 things are amplified: The fight against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance is a field fight and the willpower politic is essential.
Only 12 participants took the floor, the chairman is very surprised that for a so important subject no more states want to express their selves.
3 pm to 6 pm:
ITEM 6: Panel 1
Thematic analysis: on the role of national plans of actions in combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.
Presentation of the panellists:
M. Bessera from Mexico:
2 things are done in Mexico since 2000:
1) Diagnosis of the scourge by a study commission. The result is that in Mexico many persons are discriminated and as much discriminate.
2) Implementation of an institutional organ to fight the problem.
Modification of the constitution: Every discrimination are now forbidden.
The public politic follows 4 axes: -Education; -Health; -Work; -Justice Access.
But some problems stay: Every politic part is not agreed in front of this problem, all of them are not agreeing to fight discrimination. The budget allowed to this problem is not sufficient.
Mme Dahka from Hungarian:
In Hungary resolutions are proposed to increase the national program.
She spoke specially about the discrimination against the roma community in Europe.
She conclude saying that Indicators are essential, the objectives have to be specified and the government must allows enough resort. The political willpower is fundamental.
M. Rajkruma from India:
The coordination between different ministers is a point fundamental; when a new resolution is adopted by one the other should knows them.
He insists on the importance of the cultural side next the legal side.
The action program should use the strength of the visual in their diffusion.
Corinne Nunes
jeudi 1 mars 2007
WG on the right to development - March 1st - LR
Working Group on the Right to Development, eight session, 26 February-2 March 2007 : 1st March 2007, 10h-13h
Item 5: Discussion and adoption of conclusions and recommendations
The Chairperson-Rapporteur, Mr. Salama, submitted its draft conclusions and recommendations for consideration to the member states. He pointed out that he tried to make them as brief and clear as possible. As the recommendations and conclusions are carefully worded and balanced he recommended to the member states to make as little changes as possible.
The Chairman then explained the conclusions and recommendations, paragraph by paragraph.
The 1st paragraph is about the evaluation of the high-level task force. Member state are not supposed to endorse the report but just to welcome it.
The 2nd paragraph defines the objectives of the whole exercise. It is a building-block approach.
The 3rd paragraph is a remainder of the scope of the WG’s mandate.
The 4th paragraph clarify the methods used and tries to depict a common denominator.
The 5th paragraph is about a possible Convention. The WG has had lengthy debate about this topics. It is a strategic issue for many countries. The Chairperson explained that he tried to make a compromise (a win-win situation) between the EU which don’t think it is an appropriate time for a convention and the NAM group. Mr Salama said that he hopes that the EU do recognize that this paragraph does not include any automaticity or imposition for a Convention. On the other hand, he hopes that NAM can see in this text that the option for a Convention is neither rejected nor postponed for an indefinite period of time. The member states have to engage in a constructive dialog. The main advantage of such a draft are the following: this paragraph is an answer and not a question, moreover this answer is not invented; this approach creates a link to the current work of the WG (demystify a convention); there is a link between the convention and the collaborative process; by providing the answer you preserve the task force for what it is (it is not a political body); by solving this issue we avoid to reopen the question.
The 6th paragraph states that the views of all member states will be incorporated in the task force.
The 7th paragraph says that the task force has to adopt a gradual approach.
The 9th paragraph states that further partnerships should be more representatives.
Having explained the chairperson’s draft, Mr Salama adjourned the meeting in order to leave time for delegations to consider those recommendations and conclusions.
Item 5: Discussion and adoption of conclusions and recommendations
The Chairperson-Rapporteur, Mr. Salama, submitted its draft conclusions and recommendations for consideration to the member states. He pointed out that he tried to make them as brief and clear as possible. As the recommendations and conclusions are carefully worded and balanced he recommended to the member states to make as little changes as possible.
The Chairman then explained the conclusions and recommendations, paragraph by paragraph.
The 1st paragraph is about the evaluation of the high-level task force. Member state are not supposed to endorse the report but just to welcome it.
The 2nd paragraph defines the objectives of the whole exercise. It is a building-block approach.
The 3rd paragraph is a remainder of the scope of the WG’s mandate.
The 4th paragraph clarify the methods used and tries to depict a common denominator.
The 5th paragraph is about a possible Convention. The WG has had lengthy debate about this topics. It is a strategic issue for many countries. The Chairperson explained that he tried to make a compromise (a win-win situation) between the EU which don’t think it is an appropriate time for a convention and the NAM group. Mr Salama said that he hopes that the EU do recognize that this paragraph does not include any automaticity or imposition for a Convention. On the other hand, he hopes that NAM can see in this text that the option for a Convention is neither rejected nor postponed for an indefinite period of time. The member states have to engage in a constructive dialog. The main advantage of such a draft are the following: this paragraph is an answer and not a question, moreover this answer is not invented; this approach creates a link to the current work of the WG (demystify a convention); there is a link between the convention and the collaborative process; by providing the answer you preserve the task force for what it is (it is not a political body); by solving this issue we avoid to reopen the question.
The 6th paragraph states that the views of all member states will be incorporated in the task force.
The 7th paragraph says that the task force has to adopt a gradual approach.
The 9th paragraph states that further partnerships should be more representatives.
Having explained the chairperson’s draft, Mr Salama adjourned the meeting in order to leave time for delegations to consider those recommendations and conclusions.
Inscription à :
Articles (Atom)
