HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL DISCUSSES REPORTS ON HEALTH, RIGHT TO FOOD AND HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS
The Human Rights Council this morning discussed the reports of its Special Rapporteurs on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health; the right to food; and the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights defenders.
Paul Hunt, Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, said the right to health was one of the most extensive and complex human rights in the international code. However, it was generating an increasing number of national and international cases that shed light on its content. He said neglected diseases had been affecting the poorest people in the poorest communities. He urged health ministers in low-income and middle-income countries to prepare national health programmes that reflected what was actually needed to establish effective, integrated health systems accessible to all.
Jean Ziegler, Special Rapporteur on the right to food, said the Millennium Development Goals on reducing hunger would not be met. The World Food Report said that world agriculture as it was now could easily feed some 12 billion, and therefore the deaths from malnutrition were avoidable. A child who died from malnutrition was therefore murdered. However, there were positive elements and progress in the world, such as in Brazil where the battle against hunger had been won; and in France, where a tax levy on air tickets had been instituted to combat HIV/AIDS and hunger. He held the World Trade Organization responsible for massive malnutrition through its decisions.
Hina Jilani, Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the situation of human right defenders, said that several governments had recognized the role and status of human rights defenders. Civil society, in most parts of the world, was gaining in maturity and continued to mobilize for the defence of human rights. Notwithstanding those positive developments, serious concerns persisted with regard to the protection of human rights defenders and the effective implementation of the Declaration. In 2005, she assessed the situation of human rights defenders in 118 countries, in addition to her three country visits.
The representatives of Uganda, Guatemala, India, Brazil and Israel spoke as concerned countries.
Also this morning, the Council concluded its discussion on the reports of the High Commissioner on incitement to racial and religious hatred and the promotion of tolerance; and the joint report by the Special Rapproteur on freedom of religion or belief and the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racisms, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance on the same issue.
Mehr Khan Williams, Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights, in concluding remarks, said the Office would continue to support the Council as needed. Several speakers had referred to judicial lacunae, and international jurisprudence provided a firm framework on which to develop a clear legal regime with which to deal with violence. It would be useful to give the international mechanisms such as the treaty bodies and the Special Rapporteurs the chance to elaborate on these areas. More expert work could be needed, and the Human Rights Council should work on how to promote tolerance among cultures.
Doudou Diene, Special Rapporteur on racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, said the Council should look at its strategy on this issue, taking into account that this was an issue that was long lasting, and required a long-term strategy. The complexity of religious plurality should be taken into account. There should be no dogmatism of the secular approach being used to manipulate religious freedom.
Asma Jahnagir, Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, said she thought that the current climate of intolerance was more of a political nature rather than legal. Acts of intolerance in the recent past had provided a useful lesson in the sense that there was a political cost to be paid when people in a position of power in government and congress made offensive remarks. Infringements on the freedom of religion or belief, though, had to be denounced and combated at all levels of society.
Participating in the discussion on the reports on incitement to racial and religious hatred were the representatives of Argentina, Australia, Malaysia, Belgium, Canada, Senegal, United States, Poland, Costa Rico, Netherlands, Indonesia, Spain, Japan, Iran, Armenia, Algeria, Morocco, Mexico, Turkey, Azerbaijan and Sovereign Order of Malta.
Also taking the floor were non-governmental organizations from International Service for Human Rights, United Nations Watch, Association for World Education in a joint statement with World Union for Progressive Judaism, Agir ensemble pour les droits de l'homme, and Friends World Committee for Consultation.
The Council will reconvene at 3 p.m. this afternoon to conclude its discussion on the right to health, the right to food and human rights defenders. It will then up the reports of the Special Rapporteur on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography, Juan Miguel Petit; the Independent Expert on the economic reform policies and foreign debt on the full enjoyment of all human rights, Bernards Andrew Nyamwaya Mudho; and the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination, Benavides de Perez.
Continuation of Discussion on Incitement to Racial and Religious Hatred and Promotion of Tolerance
SERGIO CERDA (Argentina) said the Human Rights Council was showing its capacity to deal with all issues of concern, and to consider possible, more appropriate courses of action. Argentina had fostered dialogue and cooperation on issues relating to freedom of religion and belief, and had been a co-Sponsor on an ongoing basis of the human rights resolution on the elimination of all forms of intolerance based on religion and belief, and underscored the need to ensure full implementation of the Durban Declaration and Plan of Action.
Did the Special Rapporteurs think that ratification on a more universal basis of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights would make a difference, and would education be a useful tool in the long-term strategy for the elimination of discrimination, the speaker asked. The issue should be further completed by consideration of human rights violations in this field.
COLIN MILLER (Australia) said that as articulated in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion and the right to freedom of opinion and expression were fundamental human rights which should be enjoyed freely and equally by all individuals. These rights should be the concern of the new Human Rights Council. It was both appropriate and necessary that the Council played an active role in ensuring their promotion and protection, taking into account the important relationship between the two. One the Council’s core priorities should be the elimination, through practical action, of all forms of intolerance, and of discrimination based on religion or belief. While in many cases there was a need for urgent action, there was also a longer-term need to build a base of tolerance and understanding among people from all cultures and faiths, to support efforts to promote and safeguard the rights to freedom of religion or belief. In this regard, Australia had co-hosted with Indonesia an International Dialogue on Interfaith Cooperation in Indonesia in December 2004.
IDHAM MUSA MOKTAR (Malaysia), endorsing the statement made by Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Conference, said that no one could remain neutral in the fight against intolerance or any form of incitement, including defamation of religions that endangered peaceful and harmonious co-existence among societies and civilizations. The promotion of tolerance should be carried out through cooperation and dialogue. There should be an appropriate balance between the right to freedom of expression and the need to preserve harmonious relations among various faiths and societies. All States should take steps to promote understanding and respect for other religions and cultures and their sensitivities to avoid recurrence of such defamation and intolerance on the one side and violent reactions on the other.
NATHALIE RONDEUX (Belgium) said the debate addressed difficult issues that could only be resolved with a better understanding of the views of all. Only too often, persons were discriminated against because of their religion, or found that their rights to exercise their religion or belief were refused. Belgium attached great importance to the promotion of tolerance and the fight against incitement to racial and religious hatred. It was not an issue of protecting religions or beliefs as such, but rather to protect the freedom of religion of every individual - the right to have, not to have, or to change a religion or belief.
The need to protect freedom of expression should also be kept in mind. It was hoped the Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression would be involved in any future discussion on this topic. The balance between all human rights and fundamental freedoms should be preserved by an independent judiciary. It was also important to ensure that the commitment to combating religious intolerance was ongoing and was equally strong regardless of the religion or belief involved. It was essential to allow for the expression of ideas related to religions and beliefs; religious pluralism should be accompanied by the acceptance of criticism and analysis of that religion.
PAUL MEYER (Canada) said Canada attached great importance to the freedom of thought, conscience and religion. Appeals to protect religions themselves - rather than the protection and promotion of the right to a religion, in particular with reference to people belonging to religious minorities - could be problematic. The report of the Special Rapporteur dealt in detail with the same issue stating that international rights of the individual protected mainly individuals in their exercise of their freedom to a religion and not the religion itself. Canada had established a solid legal framework to promote the rights of individuals. Beyond the law, the Canadian vision of a society free of racism and discrimination welcomed people from different backgrounds - in particular different ethnic, racial and religious communities.
EL HADJI IBOU BOYE (Senegal) said Senegal thanked both Special Rappoteurs for their work. Their call for dialogue among societies and civilizations as a basis for the promotion of tolerance was significant and all States should apply it. Those recommendations were vital in the promotion of understand among peoples and in the fight against religious and racial bias. The promotion of inter-cultural understanding should be encouraged by all States in order to demonstrate the common membership of all people to the human family. However, further clarification was necessary on the recommendation that States should deploy efforts in education to further promote intolerance.
WARREN W. TICHENOR (United States) said the United States shared the concern of those who were disturbed by incitement to racial and religious hatred. The promotion of tolerance went hand in hand with religious freedom, a founding element of the country. Everybody had the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, according to the Constitution. It was because many had religion at the centre of their lives that they viewed religious freedom as the most important human right. The sacred principle of freedom of speech and expression should be preserved as respectful dialogue between cultures was promoted to prevent intolerant and hateful acts.
States should ensure that religious freedom was respected in their countries for all religions. The freedom not to manifest any religion at all, or to change that religion, should be observed by all United Nations Members. In the search for greater freedom, tolerance and understanding, if they were not present in all nations, then it was even more difficult to preserve it in each separate nation.
ZDZISLAW RAPACKI (Poland) called upon all participants to make a genuine effort towards respect and understanding. This seemed self-evident: nonetheless Poland wished to underline the importance of conducting a dialogue, and he stressed the meaning of the word, in a constructive and peaceful way. It was in that context that Poland referred to one of the greatest advocates of human rights in recent years - His Holiness John Paul II, who made of inter-religious dialogue one of the most important elements of His pontificate. John Paul II crossed the door of a Synagogue and a Mosque. He was able to transform rivalry into a constructive exchange of ideas.
LUIS VARELA QUIRÓS (Costa Rica) said that the international community was living in a multi-cultural, multi-religious society, which could not be denied. It was only through dialogue that one could build a world of peace. One should build bridges and not wars among difference religions and races. The brutalities committed against races and religions were regrettable. A dialogue of civilization should be started immediately and Cost Rica condemned any form of extremism. Between religious and peoples there should be comprehension for the building of peaceful world.
BOUDEWIJN J.VAN EENENNAAM (Netherlands) said over the last 25 years, since the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief was adopted, the Netherlands had consistently been engaged in the promotion of the rights of those who practiced a religion or belief. These efforts were an intrinsic part of its national heritage. This openness had led to a vibrant society in which anyone had the right to believe whatever they wanted, free from Government interference, hate, or intimidation. Despite some recent pressure from extremist groups, the Government remained convinced that religious tolerance was part of the basics of society, and should be fully respected by all members of the United Nations.
The right to practice one’s religion or belief, like any human right, was a right of the individual. States had a responsibility to protect believers. These should be free to worship and follow their religious convictions. In the view of the Human Rights Committee, incitement to hatred related to acts in which there was an intentional call to do harm. All major religions preached that love had to overcome hatred. That included both Christianity and Islam, and all delegations were called upon not to nurture antagonism against any other group, but to seek true cooperation and dialogue to solve outstanding issues. Less cynicism and politics in the debate and more genuine tolerance from all parties concerned would make a world of difference.
JONNY SINAGA (Indonesia) expressed appreciation to both Special Rapporteurs for their timely report. The report’s findings and conclusions illustrated in a most pertinent manner the very great complexity of the issues arising from the articulation of a number of fundamental human rights, on the one hand, and a set of very different perceptions and sensitivities, together with the reactions they engender, on the other. Indonesia concurred with the views whereby the present predicament in which the global community found itself with regard to the way different religious and cultural denominations perceived one another, aroused from a state of confrontation. That confrontation was exacerbated by a sense of injustice and persecution which fed essentially on the measures introduced in the campaign against terrorism, and which was entirely premised on the overriding principle that security came before all other considerations. Indonesia supported the implementation of the Durban Declaration and Plan of Action and guidelines as a key element in the fight against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and intolerance.
JUAN ANTONIO MARCH (Spain) said that Spain attached great importance to the dialogue among cultures and civilizations. There was a need to involve societies in the cultural development at all levels. Civil society and the media should also be involved in the process. The promotion of dialogue among civilizations and cultures should also address all actors, including women. Tolerance among different cultures and civilizations should be without borders and each human being should be able to develop their capacity in that subject. Such a process of dialogue and tolerance would necessarily lead to a harmonious and peaceful world. World stability could only be achieved through cultural exchanges and dialogue among civilizations.
SHIGERU ENDO (Japan) said on the freedom of religion and belief and incitement to racial and religious hatred and the promotion of tolerance, there was concern for the latest manifestations that showed increasing tension and violence. Violence could not be accepted for whatever reason. Trust should be built, mutual understanding and respect promoted between the followers of all religions and beliefs through peaceful dialogue. Measured and concrete steps should be taken towards this goal. Japan had taken significant measures in this regard.
SEYED KAZEM SAJJADPOUR (Iran) said that Iran was deeply concerned about the overall rise of intolerance against Islam and Muslim communities motivated by the growing phenomenon of Islamophobia and its manifestations in some western countries. The Council had an important role and responsibility to redress this dangerous tendency and take the concrete steps to promote racial and religious tolerance. The Council should call for a continuing dialogue amongst religions, cultures and civilizations. In that regard, Iran supported organizing a high-level segment to promote inter-religious and inter-cultural dialogue. It was also time for the Council to draft a legally binding instrument to combat defamation of religions and to uphold respect of religious beliefs.
ZOHRAB MNATSAKANIAN (Armenia) said that all human societies had some sort of religion. Historically, perhaps, it was the human reaction, in every different way to balance the powers of reason and the rational mind. Armenia had a considerably long history of established religious identity. That history was overwhelmed with coexistence, cohabitation, dialogue, most profoundly, with mutual respect in interaction with other religions and civilizations. That history however had also experienced instances of desecration and annihilation of the nation’s places of worship, religious symbols and cultural monuments, including, most recently, of a memorial site of medieval cross-stones.
IDRISS JAZAÏRY (Algeria) said the report of the High Commissioner on incitement to racism and racial hatred had caused perplexity, and called for more in-depth study. All human rights were inter-related, but the Human Rights Council should not fall into a situation into which many countries had, by indicating that there should be a hierarchy of human rights, with the freedom of expression at the top, and the implementation of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights be subordinate to this. It was a dangerous development to establish a ranking with major and minor rights, as this was used as a justification for Islamophobia, which was nothing but a new form of anti-Semitism in the 21st century.
All the great contemporary religions transposed love for God into relations with brothers, sisters and neighbours throughout the world. It was unfortunate that religions had been used by politicians and unscrupulous ideologues and even by criminals as leave to cover their ambitions or just to get power, and this was not exclusive to any particular religion, in particular not to Islam, which some associated with violence, but was a practice throughout the world, and had been throughout history. In all civilisations, there were troublemakers and others who were part of the dialogue between civilisations.
MOHAMMED LOULICHKI (Morocco) stressed that the current debate on defamation of religions was quite timely and necessary. There had been an increase in acts of defamation and intolerance targeting Islam and the Muslim community worldwide. Islamophobia had to be tackled through the implementation of national and international law, but not by setting up ranks or a hierarchy that might infringe on the right of expression of the individual. Morocco recommended the High Commissioner and the Special Rapporteurs to bring up in their respective future reports references to ethical conditions. The Special Rapporteur and the High Commissioner could also draw inspiration for their reports from recent conferences that aimed at bringing religions together and fostered understanding and tolerance. Lastly, Morocco hoped that the next high-level dialogue in November would advance a common understanding and action to combat acts of defamation and intolerance.
ASHGUL UGDUL (Turkey) said in view of the troubling events of the recent past, the need for dialogue among different cultures and value systems continued to be high on the agenda of the international community. Stereotyping and labelling did not contribute to an environment conducive to the peaceful dialogue between communities and cultures, but contributed to misapprehensions and sources of conflict. Civilisations contained norms that could contribute to commonality, and all should reject looming conflict. Efforts to promote mutual understanding contributed not only to tolerance but also respect. Inter-cultural dialogue was a key strategy.
It would be a big mistake to assert that any culture or value system was more advanced or better suited to the needs of human beings. There was no hierarchy in culture, or in achievements. Respect for human rights, democratic pluralism, rule of law, and accountability were universal human values, and were evidence of mankind’s progress as a whole, and no single culture could assert ownership of these values. The ultimate goal should be to bring unique contributions to humankind’s ideal of achieving universality in diversity.
AZAD JAFAROV (Azerbaijan) believed that defamation of religions and incitement to racial and religious hatred should be looked at by the Council from the angle of contemporary forms or racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. Any statement defaming a religion was equal to a racist statement, since by definition defamation was something intentional, equal to incitement to racial and religious hatred, and therefore, had nothing to do with the enjoyment of the right to freedom of expression. Azerbaijan supported wholeheartedly the practical concrete proposals voiced yesterday by the distinguished Ambassador of Pakistan. It would take a big deal of good will and sincere desire of all to improve the prevailing difficult environment to jointly engage in carrying those proposals to fruition.
MARIE THÉRÈSE PICTET- ALTHANN (Sovereign Order of Malta) said that tragic events were a daily reminder that a lack of mutual understanding and respect among religions contributed to conflicts, thereby bringing suffering on many populations. Within the framework of its worldwide humanitarian assistance, the Sovereign Order of Malta was constantly called upon to intervene in crisis areas and assist victims of different religious or beliefs. Humanitarian principles of impartiality and independence, together with Christian values, were the foundation of its work which was carried out in cooperation with local communities, without distinction of religion, raced or origin. The Sovereign Order of Malta was committed to contributing wherever possible to the development of the already ongoing inter-religious dialogue, called for by Pope Benedict XVI.
CHRIS SIDOTI,of International Service for Human Rights, said that the important task of the Human Rights Council was to combat any forms of religious and secular extremism on the basis of human rights law. It supported the recommendation for the Council to issue a general comment on article 20 of the International Covenant on Political and Social Rights.
BERIT GERRITZEN, of United Nations Watch, said that the report on the incitement to racial and religious hatred and promotion of tolerance observed that international human rights law protected primarily individuals in the exercise of their freedom of religion and not religions per se. The report noted that criminalizing defamation of religion could be counter-productive. Did the term defamation of religions have a sound basis in international human rights law? The High Commissioner’s report had touched on incitement in the Middle East, referring to some very violent articles against Jews in the Egyptian press. UN Watch was deeply concerned with the impact on the most vulnerable – children.
DAVID LITTMAN, of Association for World Education in a joint statement with World Union for Progressive Judaism, said on the theme of defamation of religions, an OIC initiative to condemn all who called upon others to use violence against the members of any religion had been brought up yesterday. There was a grave risk that silence on this issue could be construed as affirmation of discrimination. The impulse to kill arose when the eyes of the other no longer met. How would the Special Rapporteurs advise the international community to deal with the constant reiteration by the Iranian President that Israel should be wiped off the map, and his frequent speeches denying the Holocaust, the speaker asked.
VO TRAN NAT, Agir ensemble pour les droits de l’Homme, said that the Viet Nam Committee on Human Rights, associated with the organization, was very concerned for the persistent violation of freedom of religion in the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam. They congratulated Ms. Jahangir for her report and for making reference to freedom of religion in Viet Nam. The organization deplored the fact that Viet Nam was not conforming to its obligations under United Nations human rights mechanisms and appealed to the Government to invite the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, the Working Group on arbitrary detention as well the Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, and the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights defenders to visit the country for the first time.
RACHEL BRETT, of Friends World Committee for Consultation, said all use of violence and all incitement was opposed by any party on any grounds. The Committee was concerned at the apparent conflating of the human rights of individuals with the freedom of exercising their freedom of expression and the concept of the defamation of religion. Could the Special Rapporteurs expand on the distinction in this regard included in their statement.
Concluding Statements on the Discussion on the Incitement to Racial and Religious Hatred and the Promotion of Tolerance
DOUDOU DIENE, Special Rapporteur on Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, said the Council should look at its strategy on this issue, taking into account that this was an issue that was long lasting, and required a long-term strategy. Given the reports and the debates, three strategies could be implemented: a legal strategy that would examine the issue of the Danish cartoons and complementarity between the issues; a political strategy; and an intellectual strategy, as the issue of religion and racism had great historical and intellectual importance. It was important to bear in mind that at the heart of the debate lay the challenge of multiculturalism, and the Council should express its views and invite Member States to put this challenge of multiculturalism at the heart of all efforts to combat racism and violence. The complexity of religious plurality should be taken into account.
There should be no dogmatism of the secular approach being used to manipulate religious freedom. With respect to future solutions, joint action should be promoted - religious and spiritual traditions should be brought together to work on peace issues. It was vital to avoid a reading of the war of religions whenever there was a crisis, and the manipulation of human rights, which led to polarisation and a different reading of the different rights. The Council should, in its final decisions in this debate, remember that it was a long-lasting and deep-seated issue, and should bring all stakeholders into the effort, including the media.
MEHR KHAN WILLIAMS, Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights, said the Office would continue to support the Council as needed. Several speakers had referred to judicial lacunae, and international jurisprudence provided a firm framework on which to develop a clear legal regime with which to deal with violence. It would be useful to give the international mechanisms such as the treaty bodies and the Special Rapporteurs the chance to elaborate on these areas. More expert work could be needed, and the Human Rights Council should work on how to promote tolerance among cultures.
ASMA JAHANGIR, Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, was happy to note that the debate and discourse today in the Council was not one of confrontation, and speakers were not guarded. She thought that the current climate of intolerance was more of a political nature rather than legal. Acts of intolerance in the recent past had provided a useful lesson in the sense that there was a political cost to be paid when people in a position of power in government and congress made offensive remarks. Infringements on the freedom of religion or belief, though, had to be denounced and combated at all levels of society. With reference to international legal instruments, she said that it was fundamental for Member States to ratify the International Covenant of Political and Civil Rights, and with reference to the Covenant’s article 20, the threshold of this article had to be kept higher. Education campaigns also played an important role in fighting discrimination, provided they taught tolerance rather than indoctrinated the minds of the young as was the cases in some countries.
Right of Reply
DANG TRAN NAM TRUNG (Viet Nam), in exercise of the right to reply, referring to a statement made by one NGO that mentioned Viet Nam in relation to freedom of religion, said that in Viet Nam, people exercised their freedom of religion without any constraints. The country’s Constitution guaranteed that freedom. No person was arrested with regard to the enjoyment of the freedom of religion.
Documents on the Right to Health, the Right to Food and Human Rights Defenders
The Council has before it a report (E/CN.4/2006/48) entitled report of the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, which reflects on the activities of, and issues of particular interest to, the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health (“the right to health”), since his interim report to the General Assembly (A/60/348), undertaken pursuant to Commission resolution 2002/31. The first section explains that the right to health can be understood as a right to an effective and integrated health system, encompassing health care and the underlying determinants of health, which is responsive to national and local priorities, and accessible to all.
Referring to the Millennium Development Goals and the World Summit of September 2005, the Special Rapporteur urges health ministers in low-income and middle-income countries to prepare health programmes that are bold enough to achieve the health MDG goals. Both North and South have a responsibility to take concerted measures to develop effective health systems in developing countries and economies in transition. Underpinned by the right to health, an effective health system is a core social institution, no less than a court system or political system.
The second and most substantial section sets out a human rights-based approach to health indicators, as a way of measuring and monitoring the progressive realization of the right to health. By way of illustration, the human rights-based approach to health indicators is applied to the reproductive health strategy endorsed by the World Health Assembly in May 2004.
The Council is also considering a report (E/CN.4/2006/44) entitled report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, which expresses grave concern over the continuing increase in global hunger. At least 852 million children, women, and men are gravely and permanently undernourished. Millions of people die every year for lack of food. Every five seconds, one child under the age of 5 will die from malnutrition and related diseases. The report also expresses grave concern over the current food crises sweeping across Africa, from Niger and West Africa last year, to Kenya, Tanzania and the Horn of Africa this year. Member States must act quickly to urgently respond to these food crises to prevent famine, as well as responding with a longer-term vision and investment to prevent this continual recurrence of famine in Africa.
This report also informs the Commission on the Special Rapporteur’s emergency mission to Niger in July 2005, to bring that forgotten crisis to the attention of the international community. In the annex to this report, there are also two further reports on the Special Rapporteur’s official missions to Guatemala and India, and the Special Rapporteur would very much like to thank the Governments of Guatemala and India for their valuable cooperation.
The Council is reviewing a report (E/CN.4/2006/95) entitled report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights defenders, Hina Jilani, which reviews the six years of implementation of the mandate entrusted to her. Section I presents an account of the activities undertaken by the mandate holder in the past year. It draws the attention of Member States to the 310 communications sent under the mandate during the reporting year, which are presented in addendum 1 to the present report, and to the comprehensive country-by-country compilation of developments in the situation of defenders conducted in 2005, to assess the evolution in the situation of human rights defenders and the implementation of the Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Declaration on Human Rights Defenders). The latter can be found in addendum 5 to the present report.
Section II describes the development and implementation of the mandate since its
creation in 2000. The Special Representative reiterates her conviction that the creation of the mandate played a significant role in the dissemination and implementation of the Declaration and in raising awareness about the urgent need to create an environment favourable to the defence of human rights, in particular through the establishment of working dialogues with stakeholders.
Section III examines the key developments and major constraints in the implementation of the Declaration and the protection of human rights defenders over the past six years. It stresses that while certain States have publicly acknowledged the positive role played by human rights defenders, many others have continued to stigmatize them. It also notes that while a few States have adopted national laws reflecting the international obligations contained in the Declaration, the overall trend has been for States to adopt new laws restricting the space for human rights activities, particularly in the context of measures to fight terrorism. Failure to adopt comprehensive protection strategies, which would not only take into account physical safety but also address impunity, have allowed for serious violations against defenders to continue. In section V, the Special Representative reiterates a series of cornerstone recommendations for effective implementation of the Declaration and optimal protection of the work and security of human rights defenders.
Presentation of Reports on the Right to Health, the Right to Food and Human Rights Defenders
PAUL HUNT, Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, took the opportunity to briefly review progress since he presented his first report to the Commission three years ago. In 2003, he identified three key objectives for his mandate, all demanding close cooperation with a wide range of actors. The first objective was to raise the profile of the right to health as a fundamental human right. With reference to progress made towards this objective, there had been steady progress, especially in countries of the South, and especially among civil society. Of course, progress was uneven, he said. In some countries, few NGOs had even heard of the right to health. Nevertheless, overall he had the impression that in civil society there was a rising tide of support for the right to health. At the highest level of government, however, the situation was different and much more discouraging. To be frank, he said that he found very little familiarity with the right to health within most governments. And if the right was known, it was seldom taken seriously. Of course, there were honourable exceptions, including in some of those governments that he had visited on mission.
The right to health was one of the most extensive and complex human rights in the international code. However, it was generating an increasing number of national international cases that shed light on its content. WHO has recently produced an analysis of over 70 cases relating to just one element of the right to health, which was access to essential medicines.
He also presented a report of his visit to Uganda. The report focused on just one issue - the problem of neglected diseases, which were those diseases mainly affecting the poorest people in the poorest communities. These diseases, he said, were sometimes known as “poverty-related” or “tropical” diseases. In one sense, his report on Uganda, he said, was not a report about Uganda; it was about all countries that suffered from neglected diseases. The report examined neglected diseases through the prism of the right to health. It identified what needed to be done, at both the national and international levels, if these terrible diseases were to be tackled in a way that reflected the right to the highest attainable standard of health.
In another sense, the Ugandan report was about neither Uganda nor neglected diseases. It was about how to operationalize the right to health, how to make it real and practical. The report had relevance beyond Uganda and beyond neglected diseases.
He urged health ministers in low-income and middle-income countries to prepare national health programmes that reflected what was actually needed to establish effective, integrated health systems accessible to all.
JEAN ZIEGLER, Special Rapporteur on the right to food, said the Millennium Development Goal on reducing hunger would not be met. The World Food Report said that world agriculture as it was now could easily feed some 12 billion, and therefore the deaths from malnutrition were avoidable. A child who died from malnutrition was therefore murdered. However, there were positive elements and progress in the world, such as in Brazil, where President Lula had won the battle against hunger; and in France, where President Chirac, as a personal initiative had instituted a tax levy on air tickets to combat HIV/AIDS and hunger. This latter was a pioneering step.
There were regressions - in Western Sudan, millions had been displaced several times, and they were seriously and constantly malnourished, with irregular assistance from international organizations, as they could not be reached. This was a horrendous tragedy, and the United States should be congratulated from having obtained a peace agreement between the insurgents and the representatives of the Sudanese Government, even though this was already a dead letter, as the number of insurgent factions made it impossible to ensure the transport of supplies to the camps of the displaced. Mr. Ziegler had asked to go to Darfur, but had not yet received a reply.
The crux of his report was on international responsibility regarding the right to food in the case of international organizations. The vast majority of professors of international law in Europe and elsewhere and all NGOs agreed that there was responsibility and liability for human rights for all international organizations, including the World Trade Organization and the Bretton Woods institutions. Malnutrition was massively affected by the decisions of the WTO, for example. The International Trade Conference in Hong Kong had promised that in 2006 there would be a change in policies, in particular with regards to dumping in African countries, but nothing had changed. The destruction of African agriculture was continuing. Officially, no contact on the right to food had been held with the Special Rapporteur and the WTO bureaucracy, which did not wish to tackle the issues of the respect for economic, social and cultural rights, contrary to the demands of the General Assembly, and some day the Human Rights Council would have to take up this issue.
He had visited Guatemala, which was in a very difficult position with regards to malnutrition and child death, mainly in indigenous communities. Despite this, the Government, the first non-military Government, had made extraordinary progress against hunger. The Government was congratulated, Mr. Ziegler said. His second addendum report was concerned with India, where the Government had been very helpful. The country was now self-sufficient with regards to food and it was gradually overcoming malnutrition, and this was extremely promising.
HINA JILANI, Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the situation of human right defenders, said that several governments had recognized the role and status of human rights defenders. She was encouraged that parliaments of at least two European countries had passed resolutions that made express reference to the situation of human rights defenders and to the mandate itself. Her report mentioned initiatives and measures adopted by regional inter-governmental bodies and by agencies of the UN to protect human rights defenders, to strengthen their capacity and to promote the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders. The civil society, in most parts of the world, was gaining in maturity and continued to mobilize for the defence of human rights, and had contributed to the promotion of human rights. Notwithstanding those positive developments, serious concerns persisted with regard to the protection of human rights defenders and the effective implementation of the Declaration. She drew attention to the reprisals against human rights defenders who had cooperated with international bodies or availed national or international mechanisms to complain against or seek redress for human rights violations. She also emphasized the negative impact of the attempts to discredit or stigmatize human rights defenders or their work and to influence public opinion against them. Governments were increasingly adopting legislation, ostensibly to give legal status to NGOs, but in fact imposing controls that affected their independence and autonomy. That was seriously impairing the freedom of association and was undermining the ability of civil society to take organized and collective action for the promotion and protection of human rights.
Ms. Jilani said she had conducted visits to Nigeria, Israel and Brazil under her mandate in 2006. She had assessed the situation of human rights defenders in 118 countries. During her visit to Nigeria from 3 to 12 May 2005, she welcomed the visible commitment of the Government to include human rights in its national and state policies and acknowledged the contributions of a very engaged civil society. She detected no policy or systematic harassment of human rights defenders or of obstruction to their work in general. It was also apparent that there was no resistance on the part of government to engage with the civil society and to involve defenders in its human right programmes. She also visited Israel from 5 to 11 October 2005. Human rights defenders in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory carried out their activities against a backdrop of occupation, conflict, military operations in Palestinian civilian centres, including refugee camps, and in an institutionalized fear of terrorism. Security-driven laws and practices had created an environment in which activities for the defence of human rights had not escaped suspicion and repression. She had received credible accounts of serious harm, including killings, that human rights defenders had suffered and of oppressive practices that affected their freedom of expression. In Brazil, where she visited from 5 to 20 December 2005, she noted the Government’s depth of understanding of the issues relating to the security of human rights defenders and its adoption of measures that were essential for facilitating human rights activities.
Statements by Concerned Countries
CISSY TALIWAKU Uganda, speaking as a concerned country, wished to address the specific challenges that Uganda faced in its attempt at achieving the highest standard of physical and mental health. With reference to poverty and education, it was a truism that all neglected diseases were the product of and were a symptom of poverty. Therefore, any attempts to achieve the above goals should take into account the overall national development needs. The Government of Uganda had formulated and it was in the process of implementing the Poverty Eradication Action Plan: this was a comprehensive approach to dealing with poverty and attendant consequences. On education, it was necessary to combat stigmatisation and misinformation about causes and cures. The Government had introduced universal primary education and was in the process of implementing universal secondary education. In the medium and longer term, Uganda would thus be able to combat the problem of chronic shortage of health care professionals in the health service. The Health Sector Strategic plan, among other things, sought to address the challenges of health care recruitment, remuneration and retention. Uganda appealed to its development partners to support the Government’s efforts in that regards.
CARLOS RAMIRO MARTINEZ ALVARADO (Guatemala), speaking as a concerned country, said the presentation of the Special Rapporteur Jean Ziegler and his visit were appreciated, as well as his positive comments on the efforts made by the Government to fully implement the right to food and the efforts to fight poverty and malnutrition. His visit had greatly contributed towards the expansion of the implementation of the right. To make this right accessible, there should be a holistic approach with other rights, such as those to equality and development. It was from this vantage point that the State had geared its major initiatives for action to target the most excluded part of the population, with a multi-cultural approach taking into account the ethnic wealth of the country.
Guatemala had continued to try to establish agrarian reform, as the use of land was an important means of ensuring progress. In accordance with the Millennium Development Goals, a national programme to eliminate chronic hunger had been launched, and a coordination centre for food security would be installed, with a view to coming up with tools and practices for effective policies on food security. A National Ombudsman and Working Group had been established which, among other things, monitored programmes and policies under the Secretariat for Food. The role played by the Special Rapporteur to orient policies and programmes of States was noted.
SWASHPAWAN SINGH (India), speaking as a concerned country, said India noted with satisfaction that in his report the Special Rapporteur on the right to food had accurately reflected the wide range of measures and institutions that the Government of India had undertaken in order to progress towards achieving food security for all its citizens. Since independence in 1947, India had come a long way in augmenting its agricultural production. It was in a position to produce enough food for its entire population of over 1 billion and had been successful in overcoming the threat of famine. That had been made possible through a series of policy initiatives and legislative and administrative measures, which India found appropriately reflected in the report of the Special Rapporteur. The Rapporteur had recognized the Government’s commitment, both at the Union and State levels, to a wide array of policies and programmes designed to fight hunger and malnutrition.
India’s strong democratic institutions, secular and plural traditions and the commitment of its polity to the empowerment of its people through the electoral process had contributed to ensure the commitment of the Government, both at the Union and State levels, towards the realization of the right to food for all its citizens.
SERGIO ABREU E LIMA FLORENCIO (Brazil), speaking as a concerned country, wished to express appreciation to Hina Jilani, Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights defenders, for her report. There was in Brazil a growing concern and a greater involvement of civil society to protect and promote the work of human rights defenders. In addition, the Government played a key role in fostering the enjoyment of human rights and freedoms. Brazil asked the Special Rapporteur how to overcome major difficulties in the work of human rights defenders at the municipal and state levels.
With reference to the report of Jean Ziegler, Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Brazil thanked the Special Rapporteur for his report, and said that the Government had been very active at the national and international levels in promoting and launching initiatives to combat poverty and hunger and achieve development. At the national level, Brazil had launched the Zero Hunger Programme, which included direct cash transfers to poor families, sending children to school and facilitating access to health care centres. Brazil was also involved at the international level in an initiative to find new sources of financing to combat poverty and hunger. Food and nutrition were at the centre of the Government’s social policies.
Brazil thanked Paul Hunt, Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, for his report. Brazil said that neglected diseases affected the poor rural and disadvantaged urban communities in poor countries. In consequence, there was a growing need to fund programmes aimed at implementing the right to health. Brazil asked Mr. Hunt how he viewed the efforts of the Government to offer medicine access to poor communities.
ITZHAK LEVANON (Israel), speaking as a concerned country, said with regards to the report of Ms. Jilani, she had made sincere efforts to present a balanced and comprehensive overview of the situation facing human rights defenders in the region. The findings regarding Israeli democracy and the corresponding freedoms of expression and action that existed and were protected by the laws of the country were appreciated, and Israel took its obligations in this regard very seriously.
The assessment regarding the difficulties faced by human rights defenders in the Palestinian Authority raised some concern, and it was hoped that her recommendations would be cause for useful introspection within Palestinian society. Regrettably, Israel’s security concerns did not diminish after its full disengagement from Gaza last year, and could even have increased. Israel sincerely hoped that violence in the region would soon abate and that implementation of the Road Map would result in the Two States solution, living side by side in peace.
For use of the information media; not an official record
HRC06044E