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.
mercredi 20 juin 2007
Human Rights council, Organizational Meeting, 20th June 2007 (9 a.m.-1 p.m.)
The session began by concluding with the countries’ remarks concerning the newly adopted document on Institution Building and the election of the new bureau.
Indonesia thanked the ambassador D’Alba for his outstanding work as the president of the council. The representative recognized that the adopted text was the result of a fruitful collaboration among States and expressed special thanks to China for the perseverance and the flexibility it demonstrated during negotiations.
Iran reaffirmed that the mandate on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories should be maintained until the end of the occupation.
Poland expressed regrets that certain mandates of the special procedures had not been maintained and without a comprehensive exam of their usefulness, here Poland cited the specific case of the mandate on Byelorussia.
The Republic of Korea expressed some concerns on the Universal Periodic Review (UPR). The representative stated that there should a more in depth examination of the country mandates and that the council should strengthen the mechanism by applying the lessons learned with the special procedures.
Tunisia thanked the delegations of Algeria and Pakistan and the different regional groups for their commitment to a consensus.
Nigeria commended the collaboration of the regional groups, and in particular the Algerian delegation representing the African region and for its role in negotiations, and acknowledged that the refinement of the system had allowed for its self-evaluation for the better.
Egypt wished for the council to concede more importance to the situation of Palestine and to take practical measures to tackle its particular circumstances and allow the Palestinian people to acquire their independence.
Algeria aligned itself on the declaration of Pakistan concerning the right to auto-determination. The representative stressed that one of the challenges facing the international community was the establishment of viable institutions and efficient procedures for the promotion and the protection of the right to auto-determination.
The Czech Republic appreciated the package as the result of a brilliant multilateral diplomacy; however it expressed disappointments concerning the annulment of the mandates on Byelorussia and Cuba despite the recurrent human rights violations in those countries, and assured the respective rapporteurs of the two cases of their continuous assistance.
Venezuela commended the rationalization of the country mandates, and particularly the suppression of the mandates on Byelorussia and Cuba, whom it considered was inferring from politicized decisions.
The "Organisation International de la Francophonie (OIF)" expressed its congratulations to the ambassador D’Alba and his bureau for the remarkable work accomplished and to the newly appointed president for his election and assured him of their collaboration for the labor ahead.
Sri-Lanka thanked the Algerian representative for the redaction of the code of conduct and also appreciated China for its firm and flexible endeavor taken during negotiations.
The International University of Women, on behalf of twelve NGOs, appreciated the incorporation of the gender equality question in the forth coming discussions of the council but deplored that it had not been included in its schedule.
After a short break, the council reviewed draft proposals, which had been deferred from its fifth session.
The council first examined the draft resolution A/HRC/5/L.4, on the follow-up to the report of the commission of Inquiry on Lebanon, introduced by Pakistan, on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, and Sudan, representing the Group of Arab States. After an oral amendments made by Pakistan, the European Union made a statement with regards to its wish to help the democratic government of Lebanon and the draft resolution was adopted without a vote.
The draft resolution A/HRC/5/L.5, on the Human Rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and follow-up to resolutions S-1/1 and S-3/1, was then introduced by Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Group of Arab States. Israel, as a concerned party, expressed its criticisms about the present resolution, considering that the mission had already taken place and did not give a fair account of the situation, and considered the resolution to be another attack against the Israeli government. Palestine, also expressing itself as a concerned party, stated that Israel continued to violate human rights on the occupied territories and urged the members of the council to adopt the resolution without a vote. The council subsequently adopted the resolution without a vote. Thereafter, Canada made a statement reaffirming its attachment to the carrying out of the council’s decisions but expressed concerns about the implementation of the cited resolutions. Germany, on behalf of the European Union, also expressed apprehension about the implementation of those resolutions.
Finally, the council considered the draft resolution A/HRC/5/L.6, on follow-up to decision S-4/101 on the situation in Darfur, introduced by Germany on behalf of the European Union and Egypt on behalf of the Group of African States. As a concerned party, Sudan made a statement where it reaffirmed its desire to find a political solution to the crisis of Darfur and expressed hope that the new hybrid force of the African Union and the United Nations will help for its realization. After the adoption of the resolution, Canada commended the work of consensus of all the parties involved, especially the Sudanese government for its commitment to pursue its collaboration with the group of experts.
Indonesia thanked the ambassador D’Alba for his outstanding work as the president of the council. The representative recognized that the adopted text was the result of a fruitful collaboration among States and expressed special thanks to China for the perseverance and the flexibility it demonstrated during negotiations.
Iran reaffirmed that the mandate on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories should be maintained until the end of the occupation.
Poland expressed regrets that certain mandates of the special procedures had not been maintained and without a comprehensive exam of their usefulness, here Poland cited the specific case of the mandate on Byelorussia.
The Republic of Korea expressed some concerns on the Universal Periodic Review (UPR). The representative stated that there should a more in depth examination of the country mandates and that the council should strengthen the mechanism by applying the lessons learned with the special procedures.
Tunisia thanked the delegations of Algeria and Pakistan and the different regional groups for their commitment to a consensus.
Nigeria commended the collaboration of the regional groups, and in particular the Algerian delegation representing the African region and for its role in negotiations, and acknowledged that the refinement of the system had allowed for its self-evaluation for the better.
Egypt wished for the council to concede more importance to the situation of Palestine and to take practical measures to tackle its particular circumstances and allow the Palestinian people to acquire their independence.
Algeria aligned itself on the declaration of Pakistan concerning the right to auto-determination. The representative stressed that one of the challenges facing the international community was the establishment of viable institutions and efficient procedures for the promotion and the protection of the right to auto-determination.
The Czech Republic appreciated the package as the result of a brilliant multilateral diplomacy; however it expressed disappointments concerning the annulment of the mandates on Byelorussia and Cuba despite the recurrent human rights violations in those countries, and assured the respective rapporteurs of the two cases of their continuous assistance.
Venezuela commended the rationalization of the country mandates, and particularly the suppression of the mandates on Byelorussia and Cuba, whom it considered was inferring from politicized decisions.
The "Organisation International de la Francophonie (OIF)" expressed its congratulations to the ambassador D’Alba and his bureau for the remarkable work accomplished and to the newly appointed president for his election and assured him of their collaboration for the labor ahead.
Sri-Lanka thanked the Algerian representative for the redaction of the code of conduct and also appreciated China for its firm and flexible endeavor taken during negotiations.
The International University of Women, on behalf of twelve NGOs, appreciated the incorporation of the gender equality question in the forth coming discussions of the council but deplored that it had not been included in its schedule.
After a short break, the council reviewed draft proposals, which had been deferred from its fifth session.
The council first examined the draft resolution A/HRC/5/L.4, on the follow-up to the report of the commission of Inquiry on Lebanon, introduced by Pakistan, on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, and Sudan, representing the Group of Arab States. After an oral amendments made by Pakistan, the European Union made a statement with regards to its wish to help the democratic government of Lebanon and the draft resolution was adopted without a vote.
The draft resolution A/HRC/5/L.5, on the Human Rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and follow-up to resolutions S-1/1 and S-3/1, was then introduced by Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Group of Arab States. Israel, as a concerned party, expressed its criticisms about the present resolution, considering that the mission had already taken place and did not give a fair account of the situation, and considered the resolution to be another attack against the Israeli government. Palestine, also expressing itself as a concerned party, stated that Israel continued to violate human rights on the occupied territories and urged the members of the council to adopt the resolution without a vote. The council subsequently adopted the resolution without a vote. Thereafter, Canada made a statement reaffirming its attachment to the carrying out of the council’s decisions but expressed concerns about the implementation of the cited resolutions. Germany, on behalf of the European Union, also expressed apprehension about the implementation of those resolutions.
Finally, the council considered the draft resolution A/HRC/5/L.6, on follow-up to decision S-4/101 on the situation in Darfur, introduced by Germany on behalf of the European Union and Egypt on behalf of the Group of African States. As a concerned party, Sudan made a statement where it reaffirmed its desire to find a political solution to the crisis of Darfur and expressed hope that the new hybrid force of the African Union and the United Nations will help for its realization. After the adoption of the resolution, Canada commended the work of consensus of all the parties involved, especially the Sudanese government for its commitment to pursue its collaboration with the group of experts.
mardi 19 juin 2007
Human Rights Council, Organizational Meeting, 19th June 2007 (3 p.m. - 6p.m.)
The session began with the election of the members of the bureau. Mr. Doru Romulus Costea, presented by Poland on behalf of the East –European group, was elected by acclamation by the council. He thanked the participants and particularly the ambassador D’Alba for his effort, determination and diplomatic skills deployed. He noticed that the creation of new mechanisms, such as the Universal Periodic Review and the new abilities given to special procedures, revealed that the stated were willing and were making progress in building the new body for the defense of human rights, in a spirit of trust and collaboration. He assured the council that he would do his best to make the new mechanisms work properly. Finally, he stressed the need for finalizing the procedures around the new mechanisms, to start as soon as possible and signal the endeavor and commitment of the council to the promotion and protection of human rights. The council thereafter elected the four vice presidents, representing respectively the States of Uruguay, Djibouti, Netherlands and Sri-Lanka.
Before the president was to continue with the follow-up to decisions of the council made previously, concerning Institution building of the council and the Draft code of conduct for special procedures mandate holders, Canada raised a point of order. The Canadian representative asked whether a decision had been indeed taken concerning those points. The president ruled that the decision had been taken by the council on its 9th meeting on June 18th and his ruling was approved by vote by all the members of the council except Canada.
Thereafter, several Nations made some remarks.
The United Kingdom considered that the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) was the sole innovation of the council and regretted that two mandates of the special procedures had not been renewed. He also expressed concerns about the impact of the violence between Hamas and Fattah on the civil population of the Palestinian territories.
Pakistan, on behalf of the Islamic Conference, stated that the UPR mechanism should remain an intergovernmental tool, with its nature depending on the approbation of the State under review.
Bangladesh wished to remind the council that the UPR should be based on the national reports and its outcome should derive from a consensus.
Malaysia thanked the representative of China for his effort and flexibility during the negotiations and wished to see a strong engagement on behalf of the mandate holders. Cuba argued against the double measure system and criticized Canada on not condemning the exactions commitment by the Unites States on the Cuban territory.
Morocco expressed regrets that the council had to vote for the adoption of a document which resulted from several days of negotiations, collaboration and consensus.
On behalf on the Asian group, Sri-Lanka thanked all the actors of the negotiations and stressed that the council should base its activities on cooperation.
Switzerland and France recognized that the adopted text represented a consensus but the former regretted the non-inclusion of independent expertise in the UPR process while France was disappointed that all the special procedures had not been maintained and hoped that the mandate holders would not loose their independence.
Finally, Israel expressed regrets about the adoption of the new document on institutional building, which it thought was the result of a politicized consensus.
Before the president was to continue with the follow-up to decisions of the council made previously, concerning Institution building of the council and the Draft code of conduct for special procedures mandate holders, Canada raised a point of order. The Canadian representative asked whether a decision had been indeed taken concerning those points. The president ruled that the decision had been taken by the council on its 9th meeting on June 18th and his ruling was approved by vote by all the members of the council except Canada.
Thereafter, several Nations made some remarks.
The United Kingdom considered that the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) was the sole innovation of the council and regretted that two mandates of the special procedures had not been renewed. He also expressed concerns about the impact of the violence between Hamas and Fattah on the civil population of the Palestinian territories.
Pakistan, on behalf of the Islamic Conference, stated that the UPR mechanism should remain an intergovernmental tool, with its nature depending on the approbation of the State under review.
Bangladesh wished to remind the council that the UPR should be based on the national reports and its outcome should derive from a consensus.
Malaysia thanked the representative of China for his effort and flexibility during the negotiations and wished to see a strong engagement on behalf of the mandate holders. Cuba argued against the double measure system and criticized Canada on not condemning the exactions commitment by the Unites States on the Cuban territory.
Morocco expressed regrets that the council had to vote for the adoption of a document which resulted from several days of negotiations, collaboration and consensus.
On behalf on the Asian group, Sri-Lanka thanked all the actors of the negotiations and stressed that the council should base its activities on cooperation.
Switzerland and France recognized that the adopted text represented a consensus but the former regretted the non-inclusion of independent expertise in the UPR process while France was disappointed that all the special procedures had not been maintained and hoped that the mandate holders would not loose their independence.
Finally, Israel expressed regrets about the adoption of the new document on institutional building, which it thought was the result of a politicized consensus.
jeudi 14 juin 2007
Parallel event: The Right to the truth and transitional justice.
This events was organized by the delegations of Argentina and Switzerland. Switzerland wants to propose a resolution concerning the process of justice in transitional periods. The resolution should be transregional in order to strenghten the high Commissioner of Humand Rights.
Mr. Federico Villegas took the floor (Director of Human Rights, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, International TRade and Worship of Republic of Argentina).
Experience of Argentina with movments like "las Madres de Mayo" and "las abuelas" ask for change in accusation of officials and safety for impunity. It is becoming considered as a common right to know the truth on our past. It is therefore a right of the whole society and a right that contributes to the right to justice. Argentina is a kind of laboratory experience and is the country that has paid the biggest amount of money in the world for the cause of forced desappearances.
Mrs. Mona Rishmawi made a comment on the report (Legal Advisor, Office of UN High Commissioner for Human Rights).
This is the 2nd report. The first was about situating this right in the international law.
The second report is based on the information that they received from the states and NGOs after a verbal note they sent to them. A lot of states answered, goob basis. It is structured around 3 sections: the nature and content of the right to truth, its link with other riths, and the mechanisms: 1) It is a societal but autonomous right (exists by itself) and 2) it is linked with the right to investigate, the justice and the right to reparation. 3) the legal proceedings and the codes build the mechanisms process.
It is a right that is concerned about how societies emerging from a conflict deal with the past and the present. There are many components: prosectution, truth seeking, institution reform...
The OHCHR provides assistance on transitional justice and this experience brings policy tools. It faces challenges like amnesties. The Council has now to decide if it wants this resolution to go further.
Mr. Federico Andreu took then the floor (Legal Expert, International Commission of Juirists).
He explained a little bit more the historical origins of this right:
- Conference of Berlin and Paris on desappeared persons, end of 19 century. First idea of right to truth.
- Geneva Convention, Protocole 1, Art. 32: right to know
- Jurisprudence, since 1977 imposes not only during war time but also peace time.
- Since the 1990s, legislative process, traduction into norms.
- Convention on the protection of all desappeared persons (1st treaty of the UN): Art 24
- Practice: trial de la Platta, Peru, Bosnia-Herzegovina...
- New developments: resolution on the right to truth
This right is linked to other rights: reparation, identity (for the children mainly)... but also to obligations: inquiry, trial, fight impunity... It is a new right.
Mr. Leandro Despouy finally tok the floor (Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers).
There has been a big evolution during the last 50 years. It is a transformation of the judicial system that no one would have expected. It is characteristic of our times because it shows the changing nature of the relationship between individuals, and between individuals and states. It is a tool for the resolution of other rights. For example, there is an important relationship of reciprocity between this right and the right to justice. It has an important ethic and moral dimension because it concerns the dignity of the victims.
The lgitimity of this rights belong to the families and close persons and the whole society of the crime is grave (genocide).
It is therfore a cultural transformation. We passed from forgetting the past to the right of memory, necessary today to build democracy and solid institutions.
Main general comments:
- Maroc: also got his own experience and created the instence of equity and reconcilitation (IER). It examines the last 43 years (from the independence in 56 to 99, date of the creation of the instence on independent arbitrage) and makes propositions of reforms. It establishes the truth through investigation, public audiances... The recommandations target the rehabilitation (psycho, medical, professional...) and the community reparations (social, eco, cultural development programs). The goal is the restaure the faith int the institutions. (www.iec.ma)
- Spain: also adopted a law for reparation to the victims of Franco regime.
- France: noted that the process of reparation was often used as a way to turn away from a judicial process. How is it possible to show that this is not the right attitude?
Answer from Mrs. Mona Rishmawi: When UN directly involved there are guidelines or bottom lines: no amnesty. And then the other line is not to close the door for further mechanisms. She would like to see the national consultations as an important aspect. There are bars rather than sequences.
Answer from Mr. Villegas: he sees sequences in this case. It is the creation of a new Jus Cogens. UN can play important role, in exchange of best practices especially.
EAD
Mr. Federico Villegas took the floor (Director of Human Rights, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, International TRade and Worship of Republic of Argentina).
Experience of Argentina with movments like "las Madres de Mayo" and "las abuelas" ask for change in accusation of officials and safety for impunity. It is becoming considered as a common right to know the truth on our past. It is therefore a right of the whole society and a right that contributes to the right to justice. Argentina is a kind of laboratory experience and is the country that has paid the biggest amount of money in the world for the cause of forced desappearances.
Mrs. Mona Rishmawi made a comment on the report (Legal Advisor, Office of UN High Commissioner for Human Rights).
This is the 2nd report. The first was about situating this right in the international law.
The second report is based on the information that they received from the states and NGOs after a verbal note they sent to them. A lot of states answered, goob basis. It is structured around 3 sections: the nature and content of the right to truth, its link with other riths, and the mechanisms: 1) It is a societal but autonomous right (exists by itself) and 2) it is linked with the right to investigate, the justice and the right to reparation. 3) the legal proceedings and the codes build the mechanisms process.
It is a right that is concerned about how societies emerging from a conflict deal with the past and the present. There are many components: prosectution, truth seeking, institution reform...
The OHCHR provides assistance on transitional justice and this experience brings policy tools. It faces challenges like amnesties. The Council has now to decide if it wants this resolution to go further.
Mr. Federico Andreu took then the floor (Legal Expert, International Commission of Juirists).
He explained a little bit more the historical origins of this right:
- Conference of Berlin and Paris on desappeared persons, end of 19 century. First idea of right to truth.
- Geneva Convention, Protocole 1, Art. 32: right to know
- Jurisprudence, since 1977 imposes not only during war time but also peace time.
- Since the 1990s, legislative process, traduction into norms.
- Convention on the protection of all desappeared persons (1st treaty of the UN): Art 24
- Practice: trial de la Platta, Peru, Bosnia-Herzegovina...
- New developments: resolution on the right to truth
This right is linked to other rights: reparation, identity (for the children mainly)... but also to obligations: inquiry, trial, fight impunity... It is a new right.
Mr. Leandro Despouy finally tok the floor (Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers).
There has been a big evolution during the last 50 years. It is a transformation of the judicial system that no one would have expected. It is characteristic of our times because it shows the changing nature of the relationship between individuals, and between individuals and states. It is a tool for the resolution of other rights. For example, there is an important relationship of reciprocity between this right and the right to justice. It has an important ethic and moral dimension because it concerns the dignity of the victims.
The lgitimity of this rights belong to the families and close persons and the whole society of the crime is grave (genocide).
It is therfore a cultural transformation. We passed from forgetting the past to the right of memory, necessary today to build democracy and solid institutions.
Main general comments:
- Maroc: also got his own experience and created the instence of equity and reconcilitation (IER). It examines the last 43 years (from the independence in 56 to 99, date of the creation of the instence on independent arbitrage) and makes propositions of reforms. It establishes the truth through investigation, public audiances... The recommandations target the rehabilitation (psycho, medical, professional...) and the community reparations (social, eco, cultural development programs). The goal is the restaure the faith int the institutions. (www.iec.ma)
- Spain: also adopted a law for reparation to the victims of Franco regime.
- France: noted that the process of reparation was often used as a way to turn away from a judicial process. How is it possible to show that this is not the right attitude?
Answer from Mrs. Mona Rishmawi: When UN directly involved there are guidelines or bottom lines: no amnesty. And then the other line is not to close the door for further mechanisms. She would like to see the national consultations as an important aspect. There are bars rather than sequences.
Answer from Mr. Villegas: he sees sequences in this case. It is the creation of a new Jus Cogens. UN can play important role, in exchange of best practices especially.
EAD
HRC, 5th session, 14.06, morning
Yesterday afternoon, President De Alba opened the institution building session. He distributed his final paper and explained that it was a compromise formula. The intention is to give a general overview. Thus, it has to be completed. The african group presented their new version of the code of conduct in which they tried to include everyones positions. ..
As the delegations discovered the paper yesterday the session was suspended to let them time to prepare their remarks and questions.
It reopened this morning at 11am, as an informal session. It was therefore open-ended in terms of participation. President De Alba insisted on the fact that we had to concentrate on the new elements. We then heard the general comments. It was again very expectable.
The delegation of Pakistan spoke in behalf of the OIC and claimed again that:
- UPR: outcome must be adopted by consensus but with consent of the state concerned. The principal basis must be the national report, all other sources are secondary. They accept a right to appeal for the mandates' holders but the final decision must be taken by the Council.
- Complaint procedure must be confidential
- not very happy about the fact that the text of the Agenda has not changed yet.
Bangladesh, Saoudi Arabia and others aligned on this declaration.
Cuba and India made very precise comments about the texte itself. Their propositions are available either on the extranet or will be distribute tomorrow.
China, speaking in behalf of 10 members of the Council, mostly said the same as Pakistan but added that the distinction between country mandates and thematic mandate should be maintained because the new nomination "geographic" mandate sounds bizarre to them, and they don't really know what it is refering to. They also insisted on the 2/3 majority for the rules of procedure. As it was still not taken into consideration they want to prepare a written amendment.
Then, we have the other bloc represented by Switzerland, Germany, Canada...
Switzerland noted that the ONGs were still not allowed to participate in the debate and asked for this to change.
- UPR: should not have the possibility to include a rapporteur pertaining to the same geographic area as the country concerned. No right of veto and UPR should work for all recommandations so that we don't get to a system "à la carte".
- Order of the day: insisted on the inclusion of a point called "other issue"
- Complaint procedure: the secretariat should transmit the complaint directly and not examine firstly if the admissibility criteria are fulfilled because otherwise it would damage the mechanisme. The goal is to improve the systeme, however we could have different views on what improvement means...
Germany:
- UPR: agrees with the fact that the level of development should be considered but this has nothing to do with the standards, otherwise there would be no more criteria of universality. This should be precised in the text.
- Complaint procedure: should be clearly written that it is confidential IN PRICNCIPLE. If the Council decides to use public pression it can give up this rule.
Norway wants the mandates to be extended for 3 years from the date of expiring.
EAD
As the delegations discovered the paper yesterday the session was suspended to let them time to prepare their remarks and questions.
It reopened this morning at 11am, as an informal session. It was therefore open-ended in terms of participation. President De Alba insisted on the fact that we had to concentrate on the new elements. We then heard the general comments. It was again very expectable.
The delegation of Pakistan spoke in behalf of the OIC and claimed again that:
- UPR: outcome must be adopted by consensus but with consent of the state concerned. The principal basis must be the national report, all other sources are secondary. They accept a right to appeal for the mandates' holders but the final decision must be taken by the Council.
- Complaint procedure must be confidential
- not very happy about the fact that the text of the Agenda has not changed yet.
Bangladesh, Saoudi Arabia and others aligned on this declaration.
Cuba and India made very precise comments about the texte itself. Their propositions are available either on the extranet or will be distribute tomorrow.
China, speaking in behalf of 10 members of the Council, mostly said the same as Pakistan but added that the distinction between country mandates and thematic mandate should be maintained because the new nomination "geographic" mandate sounds bizarre to them, and they don't really know what it is refering to. They also insisted on the 2/3 majority for the rules of procedure. As it was still not taken into consideration they want to prepare a written amendment.
Then, we have the other bloc represented by Switzerland, Germany, Canada...
Switzerland noted that the ONGs were still not allowed to participate in the debate and asked for this to change.
- UPR: should not have the possibility to include a rapporteur pertaining to the same geographic area as the country concerned. No right of veto and UPR should work for all recommandations so that we don't get to a system "à la carte".
- Order of the day: insisted on the inclusion of a point called "other issue"
- Complaint procedure: the secretariat should transmit the complaint directly and not examine firstly if the admissibility criteria are fulfilled because otherwise it would damage the mechanisme. The goal is to improve the systeme, however we could have different views on what improvement means...
Germany:
- UPR: agrees with the fact that the level of development should be considered but this has nothing to do with the standards, otherwise there would be no more criteria of universality. This should be precised in the text.
- Complaint procedure: should be clearly written that it is confidential IN PRICNCIPLE. If the Council decides to use public pression it can give up this rule.
Norway wants the mandates to be extended for 3 years from the date of expiring.
EAD
Inscription à :
Articles (Atom)
