Resolution on Human Rights Voluntary Goals by Brazil

27th November

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ismaila Pedro FAYE