HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL DISCUSSES FREEDOM OF RELIGION OR BELIEF, AND FREEDOM OF OPINION AND EXPRESSION

The Human Rights Council this morning heard presentations on the reports by the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief and the Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression. It also concluded its discussion with the Special Rapporteurs on torture and on the independence of judges and lawyers, and with the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on arbitrary detention.

Asma Jahangir, Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, said since the attacks of 11 September 2001, tensions and sensitivities about issues relating to religion and belief had come to the fore. While some simplistically described that phenomenon as the clash of civilizations, adherents of all religions and beliefs had come under increasing pressure, and sometimes even under threat. Country visits continued to be a vital tool for special procedure mandate-holders, and she had visited Azerbaijan, the Maldives, Nigeria, Sri Lanka, and France.

Ambeyi Ligabo, Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression, said freedom of opinion and expression was one of the pillars of a fair and democratic society. Regrettably, violations of the right of freedom of opinion and expression, at various extents and forms, continued to take place in many countries. Reinforcing the rule of law would contribute a great deal to decrease cases of impunity. Parliaments should also examine, in a speedily manner, new laws and regulations that could allow the full enjoyment and exploitation of new technologies available today. The issue of decriminalization of defamation, slander and libel remained at the heart of a generalized progress in the field of freedom of expression.

Nigeria, Sri Lanka, France, Azerbaijan, Croatia and Algeria spoke as concerned countries. The following countries participated in the interactive dialogue on the freedoms of religion or expression: Finland for the European Union, Kenya, Peru, Pakistan, the Netherlands, and Armenia.

China, Iran and Jordan exercised their right of reply.

In concluding remarks to the discussion, which began yesterday, Manfred Nowak, Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and punishment, said the seriousness of the crime of torture was often misunderstood - it had nothing to do with the physical injuries sustained by the victim, but with the deliberate infliction of pain upon a victim for certain purposes, which element was reprehensible and not sufficiently taken into account in the criminal codes of many countries. The very fact that torture was still practiced systematically was the best proof that recommendations were not implemented.

Leila Zerrougui, the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on arbitrary detention, said on the right to appeal by immigrants, it was a fundamental right that had to be exercised unhindered by vulnerable groups. In spite of the fact that the right to appeal existed in many countries, this right was not being exercised by many detainees due to language barriers, among other difficulties. In contrast, there were countries, such as Canada, that provided ample legal aid to migrants to exercise their right of appeal. In terms of cooperation with States, it was fundamental to guarantee a prompt answer to urgent appeals and communications.

Leandro Despouy, the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, in concluding remarks, said the application of military justice in civilian matters was a concern to the Rapporteur. The trends of using exceptional laws as ordinary ones in some States worried him. The anti-terrorist legislation in many countries had not only affected the suspects and detainees but also other types of persons, including asylum seekers.

Austria, Liechtenstein, Hungary, Norway, Iraq and Cuba participated in the interactive dialogue on torture, arbitrary detention and the independence of lawyers, as did the following non-governmental organizations: Friend’s World Committee for Consultation; International Commission of Jurists; Interfaith International; International Federation of Human Rights Leagues in a joint statement with Baha'i International Community; and World Organization against Torture.

The next meeting of the Council will begin at 3 p.m., when it is scheduled to conclude its discussion on the two above reports, and take up a joint report on the situation of detainees at Guantanamo Bay submitted by the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on arbitrary detention, the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion and belief. The Council will also take up a joint report on the incitement to racial and religious hatred and the promotion of tolerance, submitted by the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion and belief and the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related intolerance; and a report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on incitement to racial and religious hatred and the promotion of tolerance.

Continuation of Interactive Dialogue on Torture, Arbitrary Detention and Independence of Judges and Lawyers

WOLFGANG PETRITSCH (Austria) said the issues covered by the mandates of the three reports were important for preventing abuse. On Torture, Manfred Nowak, Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, was thanked for his comprehensive reports and recommendations, which showed how much remained to be done to combat torture and ill-treatment that were still widespread across the globe, and sometimes even systematic. Cases of ill-treatment continued to happen in almost every country. Despite efforts, individual cases of torture and ill-treatment continued to occur, and could not always be prevented. The question of how to better calibrate the system of penal sanctions with the objective of increasing their preventive effect was raised. A State’s commitment and full compliance with the terms for country visits was of utmost importance, and the speaker asked what role could the Human Rights Council play in assisting the Special Rapporteur in this regard.

ANDREA HOCH (Liechtenstein) thanked Mr. Nowak, Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment for his work and current report, and in particular with reference to the working method in country visits. States should abide by the guidelines related to country visits and fact-finding missions. Otherwise, those visits should be cancelled if they could not follow those guidelines, thus assuring equal treatment among States with reference to country visits conducted by the Special Rapporteur. Liechtenstein asked whether there were concrete decisions taken with reference to mutual cooperation with the European Committee on the Prevention of Torture.

ORSOLYA TOTH (Hungary) said on the report of Leandro Despouy, Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, his presentation had been very interesting, and his activities were very useful. Mr. Despouy had mentioned the experience of Ecuador as an example of how positive results could be achieved in a time of crisis, and the speaker asked whether he had followed up the situation there since his last visit, and what were the examples he had drawn from the experience which could be used as a best practice.

VEBJORN HEINES (Norway) said with regards to the report on torture, within a relatively short period of time, the Special Rapporteur had raised several important and difficult issues which deserved to be on the agenda. Norway supported the terms of reference as adopted in 1997 - respect and compliance with these were fundamental for the credibility of any country visit by an Expert. The attention of the Special Rapporteur on the absolute nature of the prohibition of cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment was appreciated, and it was of extreme importance that States did not develop their own appreciation of the nature of cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, and the Special Rapporteur should elaborate on this. He should also clarify the links between his approach and that of the European Court.

OMER BERZINJI (Iraq) thanked all the three Rapporteurs for their works. Referring to paragraph 5 of the report of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, Leandro Despouy, he said that the establishment of the special courts was in accordance with international standards and Iraqi laws. It was timely to bring justice to the victims of the past regime by setting up such a court. Despite the killing of some of the defenders of the accused, the special court was still functioning to accomplish its objectives.

JUAN ANTONIO FERNANDEZ PALACIOS (Cuba) said the Working Group on arbitrary detention had stated that the detention of five Cubans detained in the United States were arbitrary. As a response to this opinion, the Court in Atlanta had handed down a decision revoking the past decisions, changing the analysis of all circumstances linked to the case. Barely a year later, the Appeal Court in Atlanta, acting under political pressure, overturned the decision and ignored the position of the Working Group. This demonstrated the political character of the treatment of these Cubans.

RACHEL BRETT, of Friends World Committee for Consultation, asked Ms. Zerrougui, Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on arbitrary detention, to offer further information on alternative treatment that would address over-incarceration and over pre-trial detention.

ROISIN PILLAY, of International Commission of Jurists, said a strong judicial system was essential to protect lawyers. In many countries today the judicial system had been turned to fight terrorism, however, there had been abuses in which cases of disappearances and torture had occurred. The United States had introduced the system of rendition in treating suspects of terrorism. The role of courts in protecting human rights should be strengthened.

DAVID KILGOUR, of Interfaith International, said on torture, the Government of China should say whether it was harvesting the organs of Falun Gong practitioners, claims on which had been reported, and investigated by the NGO. China saw Falun Gong as an ideological threat, and had made efforts to eliminate its practitioners. There was evidence of a large living organ bank in China. The feeble response of the Government of China had been to not provide any substantive information to contravene this opinion. Organ harvesting of Falun Gong practitioners should stop now, well before the Olympic Games.

ALEXANDRA POMEON O’NEIL, of International Federation for Human Rights Leagues in a joint statement with Baha'i International Community, asked Mr. Nowak, Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, on whether there would be a follow-up to his visit in Iran related to the treatment, persecution and detention without trial of members of the Bahai community.

DELPHINE RECULEAU, of World Organization against Torture, referring to the report on torture, said that it was necessary that cases of torture be promptly investigated and the perpetrators punished while victims were compensated. The Special Rapporteur on torture, Manfred Nowak, should monitor the full compliance of the use of diplomatic assurances with the Convention against Torture. During his mission to countries, the Special Rapproteur had registered cases of tortures, however, he did not fully indicate whether those cases were thoroughly investigated. She regretted that the Rapproteur did not include in his report recent cases of torture that took place in some countries.

Concluding Statements by Special Procedures on Torture, Arbitrary Detention and Independence of Judges and Lawyers

Manfred Nowak, Special Rapporteur on Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and punishment, in concluding remarks, said he was grateful to the Ambassadors of China, Jordan, Georgia and Nepal for their stated intention to implement the recommendations made after the country visits. The seriousness of the crime of torture was often misunderstood - it had nothing to do with the physical injuries sustained by the victim, but with the deliberate infliction of pain upon a victim for certain purposes, which element was reprehensible and not sufficiently taken into account in the criminal codes of many countries. It was a world-wide problem, as a maximum punishment of two or three years for torture was definitely not proportionate.

The point made by Algeria was understood - this was a transitional stage. In relation to various questions on the Optional Protocol on the Convention against Torture, he was grateful to various Governments for their support, and the questions on how to coordinate the work with the future sub-Committee of the Committee against Torture. He tried to cooperate as closely as possible not only with that Committee but also with other United Nations organs and other bodies such as the OSCE and the Organization of African States, for example in trying to prevent simultaneous visits. On diplomatic assurances, and whether there was some kind of watertight monitoring, these were always only requested from States who were known to practice torture, and in this case, Mr. Nowak was convinced that diplomatic assurances did not work.

The very fact that torture was still practiced systematically was the best proof that recommendations were not implemented. He hoped an invitation from the Government of Uzbekistan to visit the country would be coming soon. He would be happy if Governments in general responded positively to requests, but he was grateful for those that had been answered. On country-specific reports, these could be improved, but in general, Governments cooperated with the visit. Jurisprudence had done a lot already to define torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. There were certain differences in international jurisprudence, but these could be examined further. The allegations on organ-harvesting in China had been heard, and a letter had been sent to the Government of that country, who had assured him that they would respond to the issue soon.

LEILA ZERROUGUI, Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on arbitrary detention, in closing remarks and answering questions from the floor, thanked governments and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) for the useful and interactive dialogue. She indicated that she would continue to work together with the Governments of Canada and South Africa on activities pertaining to her recent visits there. With reference to a question by the European Union on the right to appeal by immigrants, she stated that it was a fundamental right that had to be exercised unhindered by vulnerable groups. In spite of the fact that the right to appeal existed in many countries, this right was not being exercised by many detainees due to language barriers, among other difficulties. In contrast, there were countries, such as Canada, that provided ample legal aid to migrants to exercise their right of appeal. In terms of cooperation with States, it was fundamental to guarantee a prompt answer to urgent appeals and communications.

On a question from NGOs regarding overrepresentation of vulnerable groups in detention and the overuse of pre-trial detention, she said that in many cases detention conditions were hard, detainees did not enjoy any legal aid assistance, and many times they were kept in high-security areas, including the presence of minors. Nevertheless, there were countries that provided assistance to minors and mothers while in detention or in pre-trial detention.

With reference to a question by an NGO on her visit to Iran, she continued to monitor the situation there, and had received letters and communications from the Government. She would continue to look at arbitrary detention and follow the matter in the country.

LEANDRO DESPOUY, Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, in his concluding remarks, said that there has been positive international cooperation in judicial matters. Hungary had been helping the Special Rapporteur for many years. Ecuador could be cited as an example of the good functioning of the judiciary following a unique methodology in establishing the Supreme Court and through reforms of the judiciary. The State had accepted from the United Nations cooperation in monitoring the functioning of the judicial system. The anti-terrorist legislation in many countries had not only affected the suspects and detainees but also other types of persons, including asylum seekers.

The application of military justice in civilian matters was a concern to the Rapporteur. The trends of using exceptional laws as ordinary ones in some States also worried him. There had been some legal deficit in Chile with regard to the juvenile justice system. Concerning Iraq, he had concerns with regard to the special court and hoped that it functioned in compliance with international standards. The extradition and expulsion of refugees was also an issue of concern.

Right of Reply

LA YIFAN (China), speaking in a right of reply, said with regards to the Special Rapporteur on torture’s comments that he had received a large number of allegations and communications, China cooperated with all special procedures and responded to the communications received. The communications from Mr. Nowak were received in July or August, and China would investigate the allegations seriously, and would respond to the communications in a timely manner.

LA YIFAN (China), speaking in a second right of reply, in response to the statement of Interfaith International, said Falun Gong was an evil cult, from head to toe. It was not a so-called “peace movement”. With regards to organ transplantation, there were strict laws and procedures in China, and it was not like in the Wild West whereby everybody had to guard their organs day and night against transplantation. Not long ago, the Falun Gong cult had popped up a story which alleged the Chinese Government systematically harvested organs in a particular hospital, and a huge story in the media had resulted. Immediately, the Government had invited foreign media and embassies to travel to the particular hospital in the North-Eastern part of China for an onsite visit, which had shown that it was just an ordinary hospital. The stories were fabricated by Falun Gong. Therefore, the cult had never mentioned the incident again, and therefore China did not believe their latest allegations were credible.

FOVOUZADEH VADIATI (Iran), speaking in a right of reply, said in response to a statement made with regards to the Baha’i situation in Iran, that the Baha’is enjoyed the human rights according to the Constitution of the country, under which all enjoyed equal civil, political and social rights. They had no restrictions on their economic activity, and enjoyed the assistance of the Government as did other citizens. The Government of Iran was committed to realising the rights of all citizens, including the Baha’is. No-one’s rights were violated as long as they were not engaged in unlawful acts. Those arrested had been released after a short period without bail. Any details given would be investigated fully.

MOUSA BURAYZAT (Jordan), speaking in a right of reply, said with regards to the comments of Mr. Nowak, his explanation as to why he had used Jordan and Austria as examples for the lack of awareness on the crime of torture were not accepted, and this conclusion was premature. Secondly, and more importantly, in his statement, Mr. Nowak had said he would revisit the issue next year, and the speaker said the Council should confine itself to the action taken by the General Assembly on the issue, and there was no need to re-discuss the case.

Reports on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Opinion

The Council has before it a report (E/CN.4/2006/55) entitled report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression, which describes in Chapter I the activities of the Special Rapporteur during the past year, particularly urgent appeals, allegation letters and press releases. Governments, international, regional and national organizations, local NGOs, associations of media professionals, writers’ associations, trade unions and members of political parties from all regions of the world, supply information to the Special Rapporteur. The analysis of this material allows for the identification of trends, deepening his look at issues already examined in previous reports and highlighting new policies, practices and measures relevant to freedom of opinion and expression. Furthermore, it ultimately allows the Special Rapporteur to intervene in individual cases of alleged violations of human rights. In this chapter, the Special Rapporteur also makes available information concerning invitations for country visits and reports on the meetings he attended during the year, with a brief description of his contributions.

Chapter II contains an overview of the final phase of the World Summit on the Information Society and a reference to the human rights situation in the host country, Tunisia. The Special Rapporteur examines the shortcomings of the World Summit where human rights issues were, in his opinion, marginalized by a commercial business approach to Internet governance and by the attitude of the host country, which made all efforts to silence local and foreign human rights activists. The future establishment of an intergovernmental body dealing with Internet governance, and its link with human rights, is amply treated in this section, where the Special Rapporteur also provides an analysis on the most recent development concerning legislation on defamation. Finally, the Special Rapporteur examines the most recent initiatives with regard to security and protection of journalists and media professionals and its repercussion on the free exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression.

Chapters III and IV contain several conclusions and recommendations in which the Special Rapporteur takes stock of the situation of freedom of opinion and expression as a global phenomenon, invites countries to take ad hoc remedial action and suggests the adoption of relevant national legislation in accordance with international human rights and humanitarian instruments. These chapters include specific references to the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society and Internet governance, national legislation on defamation and, last but not least, security and protection of journalists and other media workers.

An addendum to the report contains summaries of general and individual allegations, as well as urgent appeals transmitted to Governments between 1 January and 31 December 2005, as well as replies received during the same period. Observations by the Special Rapporteur have also been included, where applicable.

The Council has before it a report (E/CN.4/2006/5) entitled report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, which is divided into four sections. The first section sets out the activities that have been carried out under the mandate since the submission of the last report to the Commission (E/CN.4/2005/61). It summarizes the communications sent and in situ visits completed during the period under review. It also gives an overview of the current status of requests for invitations to carry out in situ visits. The Special Rapporteur considers that in situ visits are the best way to comprehensively and thoroughly assess the freedom of religion or belief in a particular country. She has carried out three such visits during the period under review, to Nigeria, Sri Lanka and France. She welcomes the recent invitations from the Governments of Azerbaijan and Israel to carry out visits to these countries in 2006.

The Special Rapporteur considers that it is important to increase the effectiveness of communications. Accordingly, in the second section of the report she introduces a framework on communications, which she has developed to enable her to send more precise communications, drawing the attention of the Government concerned to the relevant international standards. The framework is in the form of a table, which lists the different types of situations that the Special Rapporteur addresses under her mandate. It is annexed to the report. In the third section of the report, the Special Rapporteur focuses on one issue, namely the display of religious symbols, which has recently been the subject of much debate. It examines, from an international human rights perspective, both the positive and the negative freedom of religion or belief of individual persons with regard to the wearing of religious symbols such as garments and ornaments. The fourth section of the report sets out her conclusions and recommendations.

The summary of communications sent by the Special Rapporteur from 12 November 2004 to 30 November 2005 and the replies received from Governments by 30 January 2006 is found in addendum 1 to the report. Addendum 2 details the Special Rapporteur’s visit to Nigeria from 27 February to 7 March 2005, during which she noted that tensions and lack of understanding between Muslim and Christian communities had become aggravated in recent years. A report of the Rapporteur’s mission to Sri Lanka, from 2 to 12 May 2005, is contained in addendum 3, in which she condemned the attacks that had been carried out against members of Christian minorities, criticized the passive attitude of the Government, and urged it to take systematic action to address those attacks. In a fourth addendum, the Rapporteur recalls her visit to France, from 18 to 29 September 2005. She highlights that the Government generally respects the right to freedom of religion or belief, while detailing a few specific concerns.

Presentation of Reports on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Opinion

ASMA JAHANGIR, Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, said that since the attacks of 11 September 2001, tensions and sensitivities about issues relating to religion and belief had come to the fore. While some simplistically described that phenomenon as the clash of civilizations, adherents of all religions and beliefs had come under increasing pressure, and sometimes even under threat. She was very much aware, and had respect for, the sensitive nature of the issues relating to freedom of religion or belief. One needed to take small but firm steps and continue to go forward, especially in relation to the more contentious issue including the right of women. At the same time, while respecting that sensitivity, she did not intend to cater to the often hypersensitive reactions to many issues that fell within her mandate. There were no classic or tested recipes for resolving sensitive issues involving faith or belief. However, at the very least, the political leadership should remain non-partisan and resolve to collectively and openly commit itself to combating religious intolerance.

Country visits continued to be a vital tool for special procedure mandate-holders. She visited Azerbaijan from 26 February to 5 March 2005 and the Maldives from 6 to 9 August 2005. She would present her reports on both countries in the future. From 27 February to 7 March 2005, she visited Nigeria and received a number of complaints about violent riots and other attacks in several locations in the country. There were numerous reasons for the violence, including political, economic and ethnic factors. She was particularly disturbed by reports, according to which, members of Christian and Muslim communities were arming themselves, whether for defensive purposes or future aggression, a sign that there remained a willingness to provoke or accept more violence. During her visit to Sri Lanka in May 2005, she assessed reports of attacks against certain religious groups and also allegations of unethical conversations. Concerning her visit to France, which took place in September 2005, she found that while the State generally respected the right to freedom of religion or belief, there were a number of areas of concern. In particular, Law 2004-228 on the wearing of conspicuous religious symbols in public schools was a concern. Considering the importance of country visits, she regretted that she had no response to her requests to visit a number of countries from which she received regular and credible information about violations of the right to freedom of religion or belief.

AMBEYI LIGABO, Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression, said that freedom of opinion and expression was one of the pillars of a fair and democratic society. Indeed, the interpretation of principles related to its essence and implementation might extensively vary, particularly when it came to the definition of opinion-related offences. Anyhow, the free flow of news, information and ideas, within and across national borders, contributed to the better understanding of societies that were culturally, and often physically, distant from each other. The increasing access to global information through modern technologies was also an essential component of a successful development strategy. Regrettably, violations of the right of freedom of opinion and expression, at various extents and forms, continued to take place in many countries. Reinforcing the rule of law would contribute a great deal to decrease cases of impunity. Parliaments should also examine, in a speedily manner, new laws and regulations that could allow the full enjoyment and exploitation of new technologies available today.

Mr. Ligabo said that he had received allegations concerning military operations that had principally targeted media professionals and their work facilities. According to reliable sources, from 1 January to 17 August 2006, 84 media professionals had been killed while on duty. While in Africa and Europe figures were on the average, the situation was extremely serious in Asia and Latin America, and absolutely appalling in the Middle East.

In recent years, several countries had replaced, partially or totally, criminal defamation laws with civil defamation laws, a measure that had also allowed reducing the workload and costs of overburdened judiciary systems. The issue of decriminalization of defamation, slander and libel remained at the heart of a generalized progress in the field of freedom of expression. In many countries, defamation laws were too frequently used to stifle public debate about matters of general concern, and to limit criticism of officials.

In Denmark, press and media enjoyed an extended editorial freedom and played a pivotal role in providing an arena for debate, thus promoting the free exchange of opinions and ideas. However, the use of stereotypes, libeling and insulting ethnic, social and religious groups did not help in support of relentless efforts to consolidate an open and multicultural society. Freedom of religion and freedom of expression must walk together. There would be no freedom of expression without freedom of religion, because creeds and beliefs were an essential, deep-rooted component of the life of billions of people.

The final phase of the World Summit on the Information Society, held in Tunis from 16 to 18 November 2005, was marked by strenuous debates around issues like the global access and exploitation of Internet resources, and enhanced dissemination and availability of information. The establishment of an intergovernmental organization on Internet governance must be solidly anchored in the principles of freedom of opinion and expression enshrined in international human rights instruments. Private corporations, which had been playing a crucial role in the promotion of modern technologies, the United Nations, States and civil society, would need to cooperate closely to make sure that human rights were a fundamental and unavoidable component of the future of Internet governance.

Statements by Concerned Countries

JOSEPH U. AYALOGU (Nigeria), speaking as a concerned country, said religion was an important factor in the lives of peoples and nations, and its enjoyment and pursuit should therefore be a matter of rights to all. Nigeria was a secular State, with the freedom of practice of religion and beliefs firmly entrenched in its Constitution. It was important to underscore that most Nigerians lived in peace. It was against this background that the specific aspect of Ms. Jahangir’s report was noted: she had indicated that the level of enjoyment of the freedom of religion or belief was not satisfactory, and Nigeria was not sure on what grounds such an assertion was made.

Nigeria did not believe that its Government interfered excessively with the religious lives of Nigerians, as asserted in the report. Neither was the Government in any way responsible for the occurrences of religious tension in the country. With regards to communal violence, not all such incidents had their roots in religious problems, on the contrary, more often than not, it had served only as a cover or justification for other motives behind communal incidents. The Government of Nigeria had taken note of the recommendations, which would be duly reflected in policies aimed at further enhancement of human rights in general and freedom of religious beliefs in particular.

SUMDHA EKANAYAKE (Sri Lanka), speaking as concerned country, said Sri Lanka had invited the Special Rapporteur on the freedom of religion and she had expressed her appreciation for the cooperation extended by the Government during her mission in May 2005. The Special Rapporteur had also been invited when a nation-wide debate was taking place on the issue of unethical conversations providing a unique opportunity for her to engage with a wide range of public opinion. Sri Lanka appreciated the observations made by Ms. Jahangir in her report that Sri Lanka was a country with a high level of tolerance and which had always experienced religious harmony and that the Government generally respected freedom of religion or belief and had so far remained neutral vis-à-vis the different religious communities present on its territory.

The Constitution of Sri Lanka guaranteed every person’s right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, including the freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his or her choice. Sri Lanka looked forward to continuing its dialogue with the Special Rapporteur in its continued efforts to promote inter religious harmony in the country.




JEAN-MAURICE RIPERT (France), speaking as a concerned country, thanked Asma Jahangir, Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, for her work and visit to France. France fully supported the Special Procedures and also those procedures pertaining to particular countries. Regarding the foundation of the freedom of religion or belief, it was fully guaranteed in the Constitution through the law of 1905 relating to the separation of church and state. France had passed a law in March 2004 relating to the use of religious symbols in public schools. This law did not mean to stigmitize any religious groups, and it only applied to minors in elementary and secondary schools; it did not apply at the university level. The clear aim of this law was to guarantee the public school as a place for the interchange of knowledge, and where it was fundamental to preserve neutrality and guarantee equality between girls and boys. France remained determined to fight any form of racism or religious intolerance that could infringe upon the freedom of religion or belief.

ELCHIN AMIRBAYOV (Azerbaijan), speaking as a concerned country, said the visit of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion, Asma Jahangir, to Azerbaijan and her constructive and open discussions were appreciated. Azerbaijan had a long tradition of peace and non-discrimination, and attached great importance to the dialogue between groups. Religious tolerance had long been the country’s bedrock, which was recognised by the international community as a whole. With a large Muslim population, Azerbaijan was committed to diversity and tolerance, and was proud that many religious groups, including Jews and Christians, lived side by side in Azerbaijan in peace and mutual respect, taking part in the political, economic and social life of the country.

Azerbaijan had been given as an example by the late Pope John-Paul II as a country of tolerance. However, problems did exist, and the Government was aware of these, and knew it had a way to go. Azerbaijan was committed to take steps and serious note of the recommendations in the report, and would address the gaps, doing its utmost to play a leading role in building a model of its own, as it had a valuable basis for that. Azerbaijan fully supported the mandate of the Special Rapporteur, and was keen to further cooperate with her in months and years to come.

GORDAN MARKOTIC (Croatia), speaking as a concerned country, thanked both Special Rapporteurs for their reports. With particular reference to Ambeyi Ligabo, Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Croatia said that changes in the law had taken place with reference to libel. As a result, libel was no longer punishable with incarceration and fines had been reduced. Addressing Asma Jahangir, Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, Croatia asked how to better implement the rights of conscientious objectors to military service.

Interactive Dialogue

IDRISS JAZAÏRY (Algeria) said that a number of non-governmental organizations had talked of constraints in Algeria with regard to journalists. However, no journalists had been arrested or subjected to any form of sanctions. The Constitution allowed free expression and other laws also guaranteed the right to opinion or thought. The Algerian media was free from any external pressure, such as from the political authorities. There had not been instances of censorship. Adequate training was provided to journalists in order to help them enjoy their profession.

VESA HIMANEN, (Finland), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said with regards to the report of Ms. Jehangir, her work was particularly important for the European Union, as it addressed issues related to combating all forms of discrimination linked to freedom of religion and belief. The European Union was ready to engage with all in a constructive dialogue, based on mutual respect and understanding, with the aim of promoting and protecting these freedoms. Would the Special Rapporteur specify what efforts visited countries had taken to ensure that inter-religious dialogue had or would take place, he asked, and what should be discussed and expected from the dialogue.

On the report by Mr. Ligabo, the European Union welcomed this report, and emphasised that freedom of expression was a basic right, and an essential element of democratic discourse and to a free and open society with accountable systems of Government.

PHILLIP RICHARD O. OWADE (Kenya) thanked both Special Rapporteurs for their tremendous efforts in the promotion of their respective mandates. It was encouraging that many countries had extended their cooperation through engagement and by extending invitations to the Special Rapporteurs. Kenya expressed full support, in particular to the report of Ambeyi Ligabo, Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression, with reference to his recommendations on the human rights machinery. The adoption of those recommendations would go a long way.

ELIANA BERAUN ESCUDERO (Peru), referring to the report of the Special Rapporeur on the freedom of opinion and expression, said the information society should be promoted and be made available to all peoples. New information technologies should be accessible to all countries. Freedom of opinion in the Internet was a challenge to all, and the effort to hamper its expansion was unacceptable. The flow of free information was vital to the socio-economic development of nations. People should be able to receive information based on truth. The free dissemination of information would help the promotion of international cooperation and dialogue among countries.

TEHMINA JANJUA (Pakistan) said the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion and belief had provided a thoughtful general report which had brought out a number of interesting ideas which required further consideration and attention. Today, Muslim communities were facing the worst discrimination, violence, and targeted attacks, and this had been confirmed by other Special Rapporteurs. The report developed general criteria on religious symbols and aggravating indicators in order to provide guidance, and this was interesting and important. The concept was supported, and how these could be operationalised for greater harmony should be clarified.

PIET DE KLERK (Netherlands) thanked both Special Rapporteurs for their reports, and asked Asma Jahangir, Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, whether she had addressed the issues of gender equality and empowerment of women during her visits and/or in communications to governments. In addition, the Netherlands asked her whether she had already agreed on a date for a next visit to Iran. Lastly, the Netherlands wanted to know if the Special Rapporteur had received information on the evolution of the situation of persons belonging to religious minorities, notably the Baha’i community, in Iran, and if she intended to pursue this issue with the Government in a possible visit to the country.

ARTAK APITONIAN (Armenia), referring to the report of the Special Rapporteur on the freedom of opinion of religion and belief, said that Armenia endorsed her proposal to develop a set of general criteria to balance competing human rights. Armenia’s cooperation with the relevant Council of Europe bodies, as well as the Human Rights Council special mandate-holders had significantly contributed to the establishment of normative and practical foundations for alternative military and alternative labour services in the country. The Government of Armenia had met its commitments towards establishing alternative services and continued its work on further improvements of the system. With respect to the present exchange of communications with the mandate holders, significant factual elements of the communications had been omitted, apparently due to restrictions to the length of the report of the Special Rapporteur.

Armenia shared the view of the Special Rapproteur on the question of defamation laws. Absence of sufficient balances between freedom of speech and maintenance of public order and national security, and the excessive and unjustified resort to the defence of national institutions and symbols, had created unfortunate examples of eroded public debates and taboo subjects within societies. The dangerous outcomes of such practices manifested themselves in drawing dividing lines within and between societies and peoples. They would harm the capacities of nations to transcend the controversies of the present and the heavy burdens of the past.


For use of the information media; not an official record

HRC06042E