lundi 17 septembre 2007
Human Rights Council, 6th Session, Statement by Mrs. Louise Arbour, High Commissioner
The Session presided by Mr. Doru Romulus Costea, President of the Council, began by a speech from the High Commissioner, Mrs. Louise Arbour. Every attendant was given a copy of the speech. Then several delegates presented their observations.
- Many representatives commented on the UPR, such as Egypt talking on behalf of the African Group. The Egyptian representative said the success of UPR will participate on the success of the office of the High Commissioner. Korea added that the success of the Council is a “raison d’être”. Egypt deplores that the African Group wasn’t aware of any matter of establishing regional offices.
-Pakistan on behalf of the OIC argued that the High Commissioner office should discuss with the member states before taking a decision to open an office in a country. The representative asked for the clarity of the High Commissioner and for the coordination of the actions of the states, civil society and the individuals. They asked what where the modalities of Mrs. Arbour support proposal for the preparation of the review for developing countries.
-Portugal on behalf of the European Union said he supported the nomination of Mrs. L. Arbour office and welcomes the cooperation between the High Commissioner and Colombia, Congo despite the action of police and the army and Burundi, but deplores the actual situation of the Human Rights in Zimbabwe.
-About the UPR, Peru shows his satisfaction to be one of the first to be reviewed and encourages the presence of the High Commission in the Latin-American region.
-India exhorted the High Commissioner to delay the UPR after march so that it would be more productive.
-Canada on the other hand wants the review of countries to began as scheduled and also ask Zimbabwe and Congo to respect the Human Rights and the international laws.
-Netherland also wants the UPR to be held on February as scheduled, such as Switzerland, Nicaragua and Brazil. The latter commented that Human Rights can’t be effective without cultural diversity.
-Sri Lanka and other states like Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nigeria… asked the High Commissioner to postpone the UPR for march or even april. They stated that it would be difficult for developing countries to be ready. Sri Lanka also added a critic on the NGO’s warning the High Commissioner about the “pressure of the NGOs”.
-As for the criteria for the election of the members of the advisory group, Mexico hopes a text would be approved at the end of the session and Bolivia proposes that the criteria be broad so that formal Minister can be candidates.
Ismaila Pedro FAYE
Human Rights Council 6th Session
Report on the Statement by the High Commissioner, Mrs. Louise Arbour
The Session presided by Mr. Doru Romulus Costea, President of the Council, began by a speech from the High Commissioner, Mrs. Louise Arbour. Every attendant was given a copy of the speech. Then several delegates presented their observations.
- Many representatives commented on the UPR, such as Egypt talking on behalf of the African Group. The Egyptian representative said the success of UPR will participate on the success of the office of the High Commissioner. Korea added that the success of the Council is a “raison d’être”. Egypt deplores that the African Group wasn’t aware of any matter of establishing regional offices.
-Pakistan on behalf of the OIC argued that the High Commissioner office should discuss with the member states before taking a decision to open an office in a country. The representative asked for the clarity of the High Commissioner and for the coordination of the actions of the states, civil society and the individuals. They asked what where the modalities of Mrs. Arbour support proposal for the preparation of the review for developing countries.
-Portugal on behalf of the European Union said he supported the nomination of Mrs. L. Arbour office and welcomes the cooperation between the High Commissioner and Colombia, Congo despite the action of police and the army and Burundi, but deplores the actual situation of the Human Rights in Zimbabwe.
-About the UPR, Peru shows his satisfaction to be one of the first to be reviewed and encourages the presence of the High Commission in the Latin-American region.
-India exhorted the High Commissioner to delay the UPR after march so that it would be more productive.
-Canada on the other hand wants the review of countries to began as scheduled and also ask Zimbabwe and Congo to respect the Human Rights and the international laws.
-Netherland also wants the UPR to be held on February as scheduled, such as Switzerland, Nicaragua and Brazil. The latter commented that Human Rights can’t be effective without cultural diversity.
-Sri Lanka and other states like Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nigeria… asked the High Commissioner to postpone the UPR for march or even april. They stated that it would be difficult for developing countries to be ready. Sri Lanka also added a critic on the NGO’s warning the High Commissioner about the “pressure of the NGOs”.
-As for the criteria for the election of the members of the advisory group, Mexico hopes a text would be approved at the end of the session and Bolivia proposes that the criteria be broad so that formal Minister can be candidates.
IPF
Report on the Statement by the High Commissioner, Mrs. Louise Arbour
The Session presided by Mr. Doru Romulus Costea, President of the Council, began by a speech from the High Commissioner, Mrs. Louise Arbour. Every attendant was given a copy of the speech. Then several delegates presented their observations.
- Many representatives commented on the UPR, such as Egypt talking on behalf of the African Group. The Egyptian representative said the success of UPR will participate on the success of the office of the High Commissioner. Korea added that the success of the Council is a “raison d’être”. Egypt deplores that the African Group wasn’t aware of any matter of establishing regional offices.
-Pakistan on behalf of the OIC argued that the High Commissioner office should discuss with the member states before taking a decision to open an office in a country. The representative asked for the clarity of the High Commissioner and for the coordination of the actions of the states, civil society and the individuals. They asked what where the modalities of Mrs. Arbour support proposal for the preparation of the review for developing countries.
-Portugal on behalf of the European Union said he supported the nomination of Mrs. L. Arbour office and welcomes the cooperation between the High Commissioner and Colombia, Congo despite the action of police and the army and Burundi, but deplores the actual situation of the Human Rights in Zimbabwe.
-About the UPR, Peru shows his satisfaction to be one of the first to be reviewed and encourages the presence of the High Commission in the Latin-American region.
-India exhorted the High Commissioner to delay the UPR after march so that it would be more productive.
-Canada on the other hand wants the review of countries to began as scheduled and also ask Zimbabwe and Congo to respect the Human Rights and the international laws.
-Netherland also wants the UPR to be held on February as scheduled, such as Switzerland, Nicaragua and Brazil. The latter commented that Human Rights can’t be effective without cultural diversity.
-Sri Lanka and other states like Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nigeria… asked the High Commissioner to postpone the UPR for march or even april. They stated that it would be difficult for developing countries to be ready. Sri Lanka also added a critic on the NGO’s warning the High Commissioner about the “pressure of the NGOs”.
-As for the criteria for the election of the members of the advisory group, Mexico hopes a text would be approved at the end of the session and Bolivia proposes that the criteria be broad so that formal Minister can be candidates.
IPF
Human Rights Council, 6th session, 13th September 2007
The programme of the day was dealing with the 3rd item of the 6th session of the Human Right Council: reports of SP and ID. The special rapporteurs where Mrs Asma Jahangir for Freedom of Religion or Belief and Mr. Mohamed R. Rizki for Human Rights and International Solidarity.
The special rapporteurs opened the session by summerasing briefly their annual reports. Each person present was given a copy of the speeches.
Then several country took the floor to give their comments. They all thanked the special rapporteurs for their work and added some comments. As for the report on freedom of religion and belief, they all agree on the fact that the states should eradicate intolerance and discrimination based upon religions and believes.
- India agreed with the general lines of the report of Mrs. Jahangir. The representative added that the implementation of legislatives acts against intolerance towards minority religious groups remains far from been done in some parts of the world. One think he deplores about the report is the link between the freedom of religion and belief and the freedom of expression.
- Pakistan talking on behalf of the OIC added that freedom of religion and belief should be taken entirely as a right and thus be putted at the same level as the other Human Rights.
- Indonesia asked for clarification about that link made by the special rapporteur not denying the good quality of the report.
- Azerbaijan agreed with the general lines of the report and appreciated the Pakistanis statement. The representative insisted on the fact that states should ensure the protection of the victim but also ensure that they prosecute the authors of intolerance towards religious minority groups.
One can realise that this link between freedom of religion and freedom of expression stated in paragraph 38 of the report had been pointed out only by Muslim countries.
- On the contrary Norway thinks they can’t be freedom of religion without freedom of expression and “vis vers ça” .The representative was ok with the link between freedom of belief and religion and other Human Rights.
- Portugal speaking on behalf of the European Union congratulated the Rapporteur for her work and asked several questions such as: What kind of measures that the states should take to avoid intolerance towards religion and belief? What can be done to protect the victims? How do states might better honour the positive obligations toward these victims?
- Belgium speaker aligned his self to the speech of Portugal, and asked how should the states emphasize the need for dialogue between believers and none believers?
- The Canadian speaker asked how his country could help in the national and international improvement of the tolerance on religion and belief.
- In this regard, Netherlands and Bangladesh asked the special rapporteur to indicate a country that has adopted a legislation to be taken as an example.
- Philippines say they fully endorse the statement of the paragraph 52 of the report talking about “Inter-religious and intra-religious dialogue” “which” is vital for the prevention of conflicts”. And added that there is much more to be done. They are joined by Australia and Bangladesh.
- Spain speaker expressed his self saying he totally agrees with paragraph 29 stating that prison authorities should allow prisoners to practice their religion…
- Russian Federation aligned her self with that statement and reminded that extremist groups give a different interpretation of religion and that some create pseudo religions.
- Association of World Education NGO pointed out the fact that nor the report neither any legal instrument defines “defamation of religion”.
Mrs. Asma Jahangir special rapporteur for the freedom of religion and belief responded quickly to the several representatives and thanked them for their appreciations. In response to Portugal she added that each victim group is different from another (women, refugees, immigrants, prisoners…) so one should have different ways of protection.
The report on Human Rights and International Solidarity didn’t received that many comments even thought the work of special rapporteur, Mr. Rizki had been fully welcomed and appreciated.
- Indonesia commented that International solidarity will serve to sustain globalisation on developing country.
- Bangladesh fully agreed with the special rapporteur who stated that International Solidarity was not an option but an obligation and added that the countries should be transparent on the international founding and economic issues.
Inscription à :
Articles (Atom)
