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

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

Human Rights Council, 6th session, 13^th September 2007

The programme of the day was dealing with the 3^rd item of the 6^th 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.

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.

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.