Informal Consultations
Submitted by Brazil
Timor-Leste is co-sponsor.
The aims of the Resolution are to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the UDHR, to give a substantive contribution to the celebration of the anniversary and not just celebrate social and cultural events and not to redefine the obligations.
Two main issues where at stake during the meeting. The one of the preamble paragraph 6 and the most discussed issue was the one of the Intergovernmental Working Group.
Brazil said it totally agrees to introduce the references not only to MERCOSUR but also the other regions that are willing to be referred. The delegate is just waiting to have a correct language.
As for the IWG, Italy taking the floor on behalf of the EU stated that they appreciate the initiative of Brazil, but they can not support the text as it is. One has to find possible alternatives:
- the goals should be elaborated directly by states through national governments,
- more active role of the High Commissioner Office. OHCHR should collect information given by the States.
- process where internationally recognized people would play an important role.
EU is also concern by the outcome of the process and stresses out two aspects:
- the concept of goals must not weaken existing obligations or create new instruments
- should have a precise list of issues which should be singled out by states.
India wonders how will the IWG would function? Will it set a frame for universal ratification and for the creation of national institution as it is mentioned in operative paragraph 2 ii? The Indian delegate ended his intervention by reminding that if one adds a scope like Italy suggested on behalf of EU, the outcome will therefore be different, thus discussion re-opened.
Bangladesh expressed the same matters on the IWG and pointed out the fact that the capacity of each country is different from one to another.
Pakistan reminded that the core human rights international instruments (7) mentioned in OP2i already have a their own Committee for ratification.
Ethiopia then joined by the above mentioned countries think that the use of the terms voluntary goals implies that the countries are not doing enough. According to him, one should focus on the socio-eco and cultural rights. Deplores that most of the elements treated in OP2 are already been carried on by existing mechanisms.
Mexico is not against the content of OP2 per say, but against the word goals and proposes to change with another language like score or strategy.
Ecuador proposes to have another co-sponsor meeting, and it has been agreed by all the member States. The date of the meeting has not been chosen but one meeting was already scheduled for November 27th.
Ismaila Pedro FAYE
mercredi 21 novembre 2007
jeudi 1 novembre 2007
Conference of the Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF)
Thursday 1th November.
The presentation was made by Mr. Rashid Khalikov, Director of OCHA (Office for the Coordination for Humanitarian Affairs) New York.
He first pointed out the amount expected by the CERF this year, which is 380 millions US dollars of witch they have already received 312. In 2006 the CERF have received 300 millions. The expectancy for 2008 his much higher: 450 US $.
He recalled that the CERF includes a grant element based on voluntary contributions by the Governments and private sectors such as corporations, individuals and NGOs. The CERF was approved by consensus by the UN General Assembly in 2005.
The presentation was then followed by several data:
- Loan components in 2007: FAO 24%, UNICEF 37%, UNDP 7%, WFP 25%, DPKO/ONUMAS 7% ...
- Grant allocation per continent: Africa 71,1% (mainly Congo, Somalia, Mozambique), Asia 22,4% (included East Timor), Latin and Central American Countries 5,9%.
- Funds committed in 2006: - under-funded: 75 million US $, Rapid response: 140 million US $.
- Funds committed in 2007: - under-funded: 190 million US $, Rapid response: 200 millions US $.
In 2007, CERF have registered 13 flash appeals and of them were related to climate change except for Peru. Mozambique is the country who received the biggest amount 29% of the flash appeal.
The Interim Independent Review Recommendations:
- clarify the scope of the life-saving criteria for the CERF.
- continue initiatives to strengthen the RC/HCs.
- Clarify the relationship between CERF and humanitarian agenda
The Advisory Group Recommendations:
- improve partnerships.
- Support HC strengthening.
- Improve speed of disbursement throughout the process.
- Reduce transaction cost.
- Improve accountability.
In conclusion Mr. Khalikov informed that their will be a high level conference in December.
Ms. Sharon Russo, the Chair person gave the floor.
Ireland asked how long it takes when a disaster occurs for the funds to be available. The director of OCHA answered that it ranges from 1 week to 20 days.
Turkey wanted to know what can be done to bring more donors: 2 or 3 diplomatic briefings, reach the regional group like G77.
Switzerland asked what was the amount coming from the private sector: 121.021 US $ from the private donations trough the UN. The CERF has identified approximately 10 individuals in the private sector marketing strategy and is working on possible message by Medias.
Finally Peru asked how they estimate the priorities when they don’t manage to receive all the necessary flash appeal: CERF works with the local authorities and national Governments.
Ismaila Pedro FAYE
The presentation was made by Mr. Rashid Khalikov, Director of OCHA (Office for the Coordination for Humanitarian Affairs) New York.
He first pointed out the amount expected by the CERF this year, which is 380 millions US dollars of witch they have already received 312. In 2006 the CERF have received 300 millions. The expectancy for 2008 his much higher: 450 US $.
He recalled that the CERF includes a grant element based on voluntary contributions by the Governments and private sectors such as corporations, individuals and NGOs. The CERF was approved by consensus by the UN General Assembly in 2005.
The presentation was then followed by several data:
- Loan components in 2007: FAO 24%, UNICEF 37%, UNDP 7%, WFP 25%, DPKO/ONUMAS 7% ...
- Grant allocation per continent: Africa 71,1% (mainly Congo, Somalia, Mozambique), Asia 22,4% (included East Timor), Latin and Central American Countries 5,9%.
- Funds committed in 2006: - under-funded: 75 million US $, Rapid response: 140 million US $.
- Funds committed in 2007: - under-funded: 190 million US $, Rapid response: 200 millions US $.
In 2007, CERF have registered 13 flash appeals and of them were related to climate change except for Peru. Mozambique is the country who received the biggest amount 29% of the flash appeal.
The Interim Independent Review Recommendations:
- clarify the scope of the life-saving criteria for the CERF.
- continue initiatives to strengthen the RC/HCs.
- Clarify the relationship between CERF and humanitarian agenda
The Advisory Group Recommendations:
- improve partnerships.
- Support HC strengthening.
- Improve speed of disbursement throughout the process.
- Reduce transaction cost.
- Improve accountability.
In conclusion Mr. Khalikov informed that their will be a high level conference in December.
Ms. Sharon Russo, the Chair person gave the floor.
Ireland asked how long it takes when a disaster occurs for the funds to be available. The director of OCHA answered that it ranges from 1 week to 20 days.
Turkey wanted to know what can be done to bring more donors: 2 or 3 diplomatic briefings, reach the regional group like G77.
Switzerland asked what was the amount coming from the private sector: 121.021 US $ from the private donations trough the UN. The CERF has identified approximately 10 individuals in the private sector marketing strategy and is working on possible message by Medias.
Finally Peru asked how they estimate the priorities when they don’t manage to receive all the necessary flash appeal: CERF works with the local authorities and national Governments.
Ismaila Pedro FAYE
samedi 20 octobre 2007
Human Council 6th Session, Adoption of Resolutions and Draft decision
Friday 28th September
(in red: Resolutions co-sponsored by Timor Leste)
Item 1, 5 and 6
A/HRC/6/L.24 Organizational and Procedural Matters Human Right Bodies and Mechanism Universal Periodic Review: draft submitted by the President: Adopted on consensus
Item 3: Promotion and Protection of all Human Right, Civil, Political, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Including the Right to Development
A/HRC/6/L.1 Protection of Cultural Rights and Property in Situations of Armed Conflict, Submitted by Azerbaijan: Adopted on consensus
A/HRC/6/L.5/Rev .1 Mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Right to Food, Submitted by Cuba: Adopted on consensus
A/HRC/6/L.6 Human Right and International Solidarity, Submitted by Cuba:
Adopted with Vote: EU member States of the Council don’t support the mandate and vote against: YES: 34, NO: 12, Abst: 1.
A/HRC/6/L.7 Human Rights and Unilateral Coercive Measures, Submitted by Cuba (NAM): Adopted with Vote: Canada’s Request: YES: 34, NO: 11, Abst: 2
A/HRC/6/L.13/Rev1 Human Rights and Equitable access to Safe Drinking Water and Sanitation, Submitted by Germany and Spain: Adopted on consensus
A/HRC/6/L.14 Prevention of Genocide, Submitted by Armenia: Adopted on consensus
A/HRC/6/L.15 Elimination of all Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination based on Religion or Belief, Submitted by Portugal: deferred for the next Session
A/HRC/6/L.22 The 20ieth Anniversary of the Entry Into Force of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Submitted by the President: Adopted on consensus
A/HRC/6/L.25 Development of Public Information Activities in the Field of Human Right, Including the World Public Information Campaign on Human Rights, Submitted by Italy: Adopted on consensus
A/HRC/6/L.26 Human Rights and Indigenous Peoples: Mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Indigenous People, Submitted by Guatemala: Adopted on consensus
A/HRC/6/L.30 Arbitrary Detention, Submitted by France: postponed
A/HRC/6/L.31/Rev1 United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Educations and Training, Submitted by Switzerland and Morocco: Adopted on consensus
A/HRC/6/L.33 Protection of Cultural Heritage as an Important Component of the Promotion and Protection of Cultural Rights, Submitted by Armenia: Adopted on consensus
A/HRC/6/L.36 Creation of a Working Group to Elaborate a Set of Human Rights Voluntary Goals to be Launched on the Occasion of the Celebration of the Sixtieth Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Submitted by Brazil: Deferred at the request of all the co-sponsors to the resume session of December
Item 5: Human Rights Bodies Mechanisms
A/HRC/6/L.17/Rev.1 The Social Forum, Submitted by Cuba: Adopted on consensus
A/HRC/6/L.23 Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Slavery, Submitted by UK: Adopted on consensus
A/HRC/6/L.34 Forum on Minority Issues, Submitted by Austria: Adopted on consensus
A/HRC/6/L.35 Informal Meeting to Discuss the Most Appropriate Mechanisms to Continue the Work of the Working Group on Indigenous People, Submitted by Bolivia: Adopted on consensus
Item 6: Universal Periodic Review
A/HRC/6/L.12/Rev.1 Establishment of Funds for the Universal Periodic Review Mechanism of the Human Rights Council, Submitted by Egypt (African Group): Adopted on consensus
Item 7: Human Rights Situation in Palestine and Other Occupied Arab Territories,
A/HRC/6/L.2 Human Rights Situation in Palestine and Other Occupied Arab Territories: Follow-up to Human Rights Council Resolutions S-1/1 and S-3/1, Submitted by Palestine: Adopted on consensus
A/HRC/6/L.4 Religious and Cultural Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Including East Jerusalem, Submitted by Palestine: Adopted with Vote Submitted by Canada: YES: 31, NO: 1, Abst: 15
Item 8: Follow-Up to the Implementation of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action
A/HRC/6/L.18 Regional Arrangements for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, Submitted by Belgium, Armenia, Mexico, Senegal: Adopted on consensus
A/HRC/6/L.32 Integrating the Human Rights of Women and a Gender Perspective Throughout the United Nations System, Submitted by Chile: To be Considered at the Session of December
Item 9: Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Forms of Intolerance: Follow-Up to and Implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action
P/C 18 Report of the Preparatory Committee, Adopted on consensus
A/HRC/6/L.8/Rev.1 Elaboration of International Complementary Standards to the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, Submitted by Egypt (African Group): Adopted with Vote requested by EU: YES: 32, NO: 10, Abst: 4
A/HRC/6/L.9/Rev1 From Rhetoric to Reality: A Global Call For Concrete Action Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, Submitted by Egypt (African Group): Adopted with Vote requested by EU: YES: 28, NO: 13, Abst: 5
A/HRC/6/L.27 Preparations for the Durban Review Conference, Submitted by Egypt (African Group): Adopted with Vote requested by EU: YES: 33, NO: 10, Abst: 3
Item 10: Technical Assistance and Capacity-Building
A/HRC/6/L.16 World Programme for Human Rights Education, Submitted by Costa Rica: Adopted on consensus
A/HRC/6/L.21 Regional Cooperation for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights in the Asia-Pacific Region, Submitted by Indonesia, Adopted on consensus
Ismaila Pedro FAYE
Human Rights Council, 6th Session
13th September 2007
The programme of the day was dealing with the 3rd item of the 6th session of the Human Right Council: reports of SP and ID. The special rapporteurs where Mrs Asma Jahangir for Freedom of Religion or Belief and Mr. Mohamed R. Rizki for Human Rights and International Solidarity.
The special rapporteurs opened the session by summerasing briefly their annual reports. Each person present was given a copy of the speeches.
Then several country took the floor to give their comments. They all thanked the special rapporteurs for their work and added some comments. As for the report on freedom of religion and belief, they all agree on the fact that the states should eradicate intolerance and discrimination based upon religions and believes.
- India agreed with the general lines of the report of Mrs. Jahangir. The representative added that the implementation of legislatives acts against intolerance towards minority religious groups remains far from been done in some parts of the world. One think he deplores about the report is the link between the freedom of religion and belief and the freedom of expression.
- Pakistan talking on behalf of the OIC added that freedom of religion and belief should be taken entirely as a right and thus be putted at the same level as the other Human Rights.
- Indonesia asked for clarification about that link made by the special rapporteur not denying the good quality of the report.
- Azerbaijan agreed with the general lines of the report and appreciated the Pakistanis statement. The representative insisted on the fact that states should ensure the protection of the victim but also ensure that they prosecute the authors of intolerance towards religious minority groups.
One can realise that this link between freedom of religion and freedom of expression stated in paragraph 38 of the report had been pointed out only by Muslim countries.
- On the contrary Norway thinks they can’t be freedom of religion without freedom of expression and “vis vers ça” .The representative was ok with the link between freedom of belief and religion and other Human Rights.
- Portugal speaking on behalf of the European Union congratulated the Rapporteur for her work and asked several questions such as: What kind of measures that the states should take to avoid intolerance towards religion and belief? What can be done to protect the victims? How do states might better honour the positive obligations toward these victims?
- Belgium speaker aligned his self to the speech of Portugal, and asked how should the states emphasize the need for dialogue between believers and none believers?
- The Canadian speaker asked how his country could help in the national and international improvement of the tolerance on religion and belief.
- In this regard, Netherlands and Bangladesh asked the special rapporteur to indicate a country that has adopted a legislation to be taken as an example.
- Philippines say they fully endorse the statement of the paragraph 52 of the report talking about “Inter-religious and intra-religious dialogue” “which” is vital for the prevention of conflicts”. And added that there is much more to be done. They are joined by Australia and Bangladesh.
- Spain speaker expressed his self saying he totally agrees with paragraph 29 stating that prison authorities should allow prisoners to practice their religion…
- Russian Federation aligned her self with that statement and reminded that extremist groups give a different interpretation of religion and that some create pseudo religions.
- Association of World Education NGO pointed out the fact that nor the report neither any legal instrument defines “defamation of religion”.
Mrs. Asma Jahangir special rapporteur for the freedom of religion and belief responded quickly to the several representatives and thanked them for their appreciations. In response to Portugal she added that each victim group is different from another (women, refugees, immigrants, prisoners…) so one should have different ways of protection.
The report on Human Rights and International Solidarity didn’t received that many comments even thought the work of special rapporteur, Mr. Rizki had been fully welcomed and appreciated.
- Indonesia commented that International solidarity will serve to sustain globalisation on developing country.
- Bangladesh fully agreed with the special rapporteur who stated that International Solidarity was not an option but an obligation and added that the countries should be transparent on the international founding and economic issues.
- Tunisia took the floor to say he totally agree with paragraph 12 (States parties has the obligation…) of the report and asked how the states should ensure that recommendation.
Ismaila Pedro FAYE
The programme of the day was dealing with the 3rd item of the 6th session of the Human Right Council: reports of SP and ID. The special rapporteurs where Mrs Asma Jahangir for Freedom of Religion or Belief and Mr. Mohamed R. Rizki for Human Rights and International Solidarity.
The special rapporteurs opened the session by summerasing briefly their annual reports. Each person present was given a copy of the speeches.
Then several country took the floor to give their comments. They all thanked the special rapporteurs for their work and added some comments. As for the report on freedom of religion and belief, they all agree on the fact that the states should eradicate intolerance and discrimination based upon religions and believes.
- India agreed with the general lines of the report of Mrs. Jahangir. The representative added that the implementation of legislatives acts against intolerance towards minority religious groups remains far from been done in some parts of the world. One think he deplores about the report is the link between the freedom of religion and belief and the freedom of expression.
- Pakistan talking on behalf of the OIC added that freedom of religion and belief should be taken entirely as a right and thus be putted at the same level as the other Human Rights.
- Indonesia asked for clarification about that link made by the special rapporteur not denying the good quality of the report.
- Azerbaijan agreed with the general lines of the report and appreciated the Pakistanis statement. The representative insisted on the fact that states should ensure the protection of the victim but also ensure that they prosecute the authors of intolerance towards religious minority groups.
One can realise that this link between freedom of religion and freedom of expression stated in paragraph 38 of the report had been pointed out only by Muslim countries.
- On the contrary Norway thinks they can’t be freedom of religion without freedom of expression and “vis vers ça” .The representative was ok with the link between freedom of belief and religion and other Human Rights.
- Portugal speaking on behalf of the European Union congratulated the Rapporteur for her work and asked several questions such as: What kind of measures that the states should take to avoid intolerance towards religion and belief? What can be done to protect the victims? How do states might better honour the positive obligations toward these victims?
- Belgium speaker aligned his self to the speech of Portugal, and asked how should the states emphasize the need for dialogue between believers and none believers?
- The Canadian speaker asked how his country could help in the national and international improvement of the tolerance on religion and belief.
- In this regard, Netherlands and Bangladesh asked the special rapporteur to indicate a country that has adopted a legislation to be taken as an example.
- Philippines say they fully endorse the statement of the paragraph 52 of the report talking about “Inter-religious and intra-religious dialogue” “which” is vital for the prevention of conflicts”. And added that there is much more to be done. They are joined by Australia and Bangladesh.
- Spain speaker expressed his self saying he totally agrees with paragraph 29 stating that prison authorities should allow prisoners to practice their religion…
- Russian Federation aligned her self with that statement and reminded that extremist groups give a different interpretation of religion and that some create pseudo religions.
- Association of World Education NGO pointed out the fact that nor the report neither any legal instrument defines “defamation of religion”.
Mrs. Asma Jahangir special rapporteur for the freedom of religion and belief responded quickly to the several representatives and thanked them for their appreciations. In response to Portugal she added that each victim group is different from another (women, refugees, immigrants, prisoners…) so one should have different ways of protection.
The report on Human Rights and International Solidarity didn’t received that many comments even thought the work of special rapporteur, Mr. Rizki had been fully welcomed and appreciated.
- Indonesia commented that International solidarity will serve to sustain globalisation on developing country.
- Bangladesh fully agreed with the special rapporteur who stated that International Solidarity was not an option but an obligation and added that the countries should be transparent on the international founding and economic issues.
- Tunisia took the floor to say he totally agree with paragraph 12 (States parties has the obligation…) of the report and asked how the states should ensure that recommendation.
Ismaila Pedro FAYE
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)
