HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL ADOPTS SEVEN TEXTS ON RACISM, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND CAPACITY BUILDING

The Human Rights Council this afternoon suspended its sixth regular session until 10 December after adopting six resolutions and one decision dealing with racism, racial discrimination, technical assistance and capacity building.

Among other things, the Council invited the Preparatory Committee for the Durban Review Conference to submit its reports to the General Assembly; decided to convene the inaugural session of the Ad Hoc Committee of the Human Rights Council on the Elaboration of Complementary Standards to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination in the first quarter of 2008 to commence its mandate; decided to realign the work of the Anti-Discrimination Unit in the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights consistent with its mandate and to change its name into “The Anti-Racial Discrimination Unit”; and requested the Chairperson of the Preparatory Committee for the Durban Review Conference to present her report to the UN General assembly during its sixty-second session, covering progress made in preparation to the 2009 Conference.

The Council also decided to extend for two more years (2008-2009) the first phase of the World Programme for Human Rights Education in order to allow all relevant actors to accomplish the implementation of the Plan of Action, and requested the High Commissioner to submit to the Council a report containing the conclusion of the Fourteenth Annual Workshop on Regional Cooperation for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights in the Asia-Pacific Region. It adopted a text asking the High Commissioner for Human Rights to convene in 2008 a workshop on regional arrangements for the promotion of human rights.

In concluding remarks, Doru Romulus Costea, President of the Human Rights Council, said the Council had completed three weeks of intensive meetings. It had made progress in adopting the institution building text. It had set in motion the review, rationalization and improvement of mandates and had agreed to continue and intensify consultations on the approach and methodology. As he had repeatedly stated, this was “work in progress”. He was confident that the Council would live up to expectations in the important work that lay ahead.

Speaking this afternoon were the representatives of Belgium, Egypt on behalf of the African Group, Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, Slovenia on behalf of the European Union, India, Costa Rica, Indonesia, Finland, Thailand, Denmark, Chile, and Gabon.

Also speaking was the representative of Friends World Committee for Consultation (Quakers).

The Council is scheduled to resume its sixth session from 10 to 14 December 2007. There will be a Special Session of the Council to consider the situation of human rights in Myanmar on Tuesday 2 October.

Resolution on Regional Arrangements for Promotion of Human Rights

In a resolution (A/HRC/6/L.18/Rev.1) on regional arrangements for the promotion and protection of human rights, adopted without a vote as orally revised, the Council requests the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to convene in 2008 a workshop for an exchange of views on good practices, added value and challenges for such regional arrangements, with the participation of representatives of the relevant regional and subregional arrangements from different regions, experts as well as all interested United Nations Member States, observers, national human rights institutions and representatives of non-governmental organizations, based on arrangements including ECOSOC resolutions and practices observed by the Commission on Human Rights; also requests the Office of the High Commissioner to report to the Council a summary of the discussions of the workshop at a moment in conformity with the work of the Council.

BART OUVRY (Belgium), introducing the draft resolution, said Belgium had traditionally promoted a consensus-based initiative on the issue. The term “regional arrangements” was an agreed term referring only to intergovernmental or supranational bodies. There were some changes in approach, notably in terms of taking a trans-regional approach to the matter. There were two revisions, in the preambular paragraph six and in operational paragraph 3.

Decision on Report of Preparatory Committee for the Durban Review Conference

In a decision (PC.1/8 from document A/CONF.211/PC.1/L.3) on the report of the Preparatory Committee, the Council, recalling its resolution 3/2 of 8 December 2006, invites the Preparatory Committee [for the Durban Review Conference] to submit its reports to the General Assembly.

Resolution on Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination

In a resolution (A/HRC/6/L.8/Rev.1) on the elaboration of international complementary standards to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, adopted by a vote of 32 in favour, 10 against, and four abstentions, the Council, decides to convene the inaugural session of the Ad Hoc Committee of the Human Rights Council on the Elaboration of Complementary Standards in the first quarter of 2008 to commence its mandate, and to allocate no more than two days at the beginning of the inaugural session of the Committee to reflect on all contributions and studies presented by various stakeholders and the relevant mechanisms that are necessary for the realisation of its mandate.


The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour (32): Angola, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Brazil, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Ghana, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritius, Mexico, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Sri Lanka and Zambia.

Against (10): Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Romania, Slovenia, Switzerland and United Kingdom.

Abstentions (4): Japan, Republic of Korea, Ukraine and Uruguay.


SAMEH SHOUKRY (Egypt), speaking behalf of the Members of the African Group who are Members of the Council, introducing the draft resolution, said it was a continuation of an earlier decision of the Human Rights Council that had asked the first meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee to take place before the end of 2007. But this had to be rescheduled due to the current transitional phase of the Human Rights Council. Oral amendments to the text were presented.

TEHMINA JANJUA (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) Members of the Council, said the OIC strongly supported the initiative. Preambular paragraph 4 of the resolution was extremely important in the context of misuse of freedom of expression and opinion and xenophobic tendencies in discrimination against groups and cultures, refugees, minorities and migrants in particular. The draft satisfied demands for complementary standards. It had been suggested that the Council and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights should work to close the gaps in juridicial matters concerning defamation of religions and religious intolerance.

ANDREJ LOGAR, (Slovenia), speaking on behalf of the European Union members who were members of the Human Rights Council, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said the European Union was fully committed to the fight against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, and said the expansion of international and complementary standards could address current challenges, but it should be addressed through comprehensive addressing of gaps in international standards. It should also fight manifestations of racism, and contribute to the protection and promotion of human rights globally. The draft before the Council created a hierarchy between different victims of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. It was regretted that it made an evaluation of work before any substantial discussion had taken place. For these reasons and others, the European Union called for a vote and would vote against the resolution.

Resolution on Global Call for Concrete Action Against Racism

In a resolution (A/HRC/6/L.9) entitled from rhetoric to reality: a global call for concrete action against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, adopted by a vote of 28 in favour, 13 against, and five abstentions, the Council decides to realign the work of the Anti-Discrimination Unit in the OHCHR consistent with its mandate and to change its name into “The Anti-Racial Discrimination Unit” and that its operational activities shall focus exclusively on racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance; encourages closer collaboration between the Intergovernmental Working Group and the Independent Eminent Experts on ways and means of achieving enhanced political will and commitment to combating all contemporary manifestations of this issue; emphasizes the importance of demonstrating goodwill to humanity and the primacy of reconciliation by taking concrete steps towards the implementation of key issues of concern to the victims of racism; regrets that the commitments made in some paragraphs or the Durban Programme of Action remain unfulfilled; and decides to remain seized of this important issue.


The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour (28): Angola, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritius, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Sri Lanka and Zambia.

Against (13): Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Republic of Korea, Romania, Slovenia, Switzerland, Ukraine and United Kingdom.

Abstentions (5): Brazil, Guatemala, Mexico, Peru and Uruguay.


SAMEH SHOUKRY (Egypt), speaking on behalf of Members of the African Group who are Members of the Council, introducing the draft resolution, said that all States had fallen behind their commitments made at the Durban Conference. The resolution called for past victims of racism to be recognized. It also aimed to rename the name of the unit. Oral amendments to the draft were presented to the Council.

ANDREJ LOGAR (Slovenia), speaking on behalf of the European Union Members who are Members of the Council, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said the European Union was committed to combating racism, racial discrimination and related intolerance and to the Durban Declaration. It was regrettable that the draft implied that racism was only present in some parts of the world, and seemed to establish a hierarchy between victims of racism, racial intolerance and xenophobia. The European Union also opposed attempts to interfere with the management work of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights by attempting to refocus and rename a unit under the Office’s remit.

Resolution on Preparations for the Durban Review Conference

In a resolution (A/HRC/6/L.27) on preparations for the Durban Review Conference, adopted by a vote of 33 in favour, 10 against, and three abstentions, as orally amended, the Council requests the Chairperson of the Preparatory Committee for the Durban Review Conference to present her report to the UN General Assembly during its sixty-second session, covering progress made in preparation to the 2009 Conference; looks forward to the United Nations General Assembly providing political guidance to ensure a smooth and successful Conference; decides to remain seized of this important item on its agenda.

The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour (33): Angola, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Brazil, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Ghana, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritius, Mexico, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Uruguay and Zambia.

Against (10): Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Romania, Slovenia, Switzerland and United Kingdom.

Abstentions (3): Japan, Republic of Korea and Ukraine.


SAMEH SHOUKRY (Egypt), speaking on behalf of Members of the African Group who are Members of the Council, introducing the draft amendment, said that the text was concise and contained the legal framework for the Durban Conference. The African Group looked forward to the Durban Preparatory Committee and the Review Conference. Oral amendments were presented.

TEHMINA JANJUA (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) Members of the Council), said the efforts by the African Group were welcomed and the OIC would continue to support the preparatory process leading up to the Review Conference. The Chairperson must brief the General Assembly as this was the UN’s highest body. Guidance should be provided to ensure a strong conference.

ANDREJ LOGAR (Slovenia), speaking on behalf of the European Union members who are Member States of the Human Rights Council, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that last year at the General Assembly the European Union was able to reach an understanding with other delegations on the calling of a Review Conference to the Durban Declaration and Plan of Action, and on the basis of this was fully committed to the realisation and success of the latter. The conclusion of the draft resolution did not reflect the spirit of compromise of the Preparatory Committee, and was not entirely factual with regards to the contribution of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) therein. The participation of civil society should be intensified, and all delegations should ensure the full and unfettered participation of NGOs accredited to the Preparatory Committee. The consensus could have been easily reached on the text if more willingness had been shown. For these reasons, the European Union called for a vote on the draft resolution, and would vote against it.

MUNU MAHAWAR (India), in an explanation of vote after the vote on L.25 which was adopted in the morning meeting, said that results of the preparatory group should have been integrated. India had nonetheless supported the text.

Resolution on World Programme for Human Rights Education

In a resolution (A/HRC/6/L.16) on the World Programme for Human Rights Education, adopted without a vote as orally corrected, the Council: decides to extend for two more years (2008-2009) the first phase of the World Programme for Human Rights Education in order to allow all relevant actors to accomplish the implementation of the Plan of Action, focusing on the primary and secondary school systems; encourages all States to develop initiatives within the World Programme for Human Rights Education and, in particular, to implement the Plan of Action for the first phase of the World Programme as adopted by the General Assembly; requests all the members of the United Nations Inter-Agency Coordinating Committee on Human Rights Education in the School System and, in particular, the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), to promote the national implementation of the Plan of Action, provide technical assistance when requested and, coordinate related international efforts; calls upon all existing national human rights institutions to assist in the implementation of human rights education programmes; requests the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and UNESCO to disseminate widely the Plan of Action, including electronic means and formats of communication which are accessible to persons with disabilities; and requests OHCHR to report to the Council at its last 2008 session on progress made towards the implementation of the present resolution.

LAURA THOMPSON (Costa Rica), introducing the draft, said it was extremely important for States, national human rights institutions, United Nations agencies and non-governmental organizations to provide support and impetus on the subject. Education in human rights was essential for conflict prevention and to promote democratic participation and fundamental rights. The goal was to provide decisive impetus for the global Plan of Action, and to extend it for two years. A minor correction was made to operational paragraph 9.

Resolution on Regional Cooperation for Promotion of Human Rights in Asia-Pacific Region

In a resolution (A/HRC/6/L.21) on regional cooperation for the promotion and protection of human rights in the Asia-Pacific Region, adopted without a vote, the Council requests the High Commissioner to submit to the Council a report containing the conclusion of the Fourteenth Annual Workshop on Regional Cooperation for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights in the Asia-Pacific Region; and decides to convene the next session of the workshop in 2008.

JOSE TAVARES (Indonesia), introducing the draft resolution, said this was a draft from the Asian Group as a whole plus Australia and New Zealand. It asked for the Council to convene the workshop next year. Several plans of actions had been implemented. The conclusion of the 14 workshops had brought many actions. This was a traditional resolution and had been adopted without a vote in the past.

Comments after Council Concludes Taking Action on Resolutions and Decisions

PEKKA METSO (Finland), in a general comment, said, in relation to L.6, the resolution on human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, adopted by consensus this morning, that the hard work and good spirit shown by the sponsors during negotiations were to be commended. Finland would have liked a stronger reference in support of the mandate. But consensus on this issue was an important objective, and it was welcome that the resolution recognised the recent Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and provided a strong mandate for the Rapporteur to promote it.

LADA PHUMAS (Thailand) said with regards to the Presidential Statement L.22 on the twentieth anniversary of the United Nations Convention against Torture, which was adopted by consensus, Thailand was pleased to inform the Council that the Thai Government’s Cabinet had approved Thailand’s accession to the Convention, and the Thai Foreign Minister would submit the instrument of accession to the United Nations in New York. This would be the sixth international instrument to which Thailand would be party.

LARS VOLCK MADSEN (Denmark) said that, concerning L.26, it was with great satisfaction to Denmark that the Human Rights Council had extended the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people. Another highly significant event had happened a few weeks ago with the adoption of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Denmark was happy to be a co-sponsor of the resolution on the extension of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on indigenous people.

JUAN MARTABIT (Chile), in a general comment, said he had followed the debate and the vote on resolutions L.8.Rev 1 , L.9 Rev. 1 and L.27. He deeply regretted that they were not adopted by consensus. In the last four years, as Chair of the Working Group on Follow-up and Implementation on the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, Chile had done everything it could to ensure they were adopted by consensus. This was no day of glory for the Council. He was disappointed that the resolutions had been put to a vote.

RACHEL BRETT, of Friends World Committee for Consultation (QUAKER), speaking on behalf of several NGOs1, said non-governmental organizations (NGOs) welcomed the increased substance in the work of the Council over this session, in particular the innovation and substance of the Gender Panel, the completion of the review of some Special Procedures, allowing the latter to move forward, the creation of the first new mandate, the continued practice of NGO participation, the decisions taken enabling the Universal Periodic Review to get underway, and the level of consensus and cooperation evident in the important decisions taken without a vote. There had been continuing problems with the level of uncertainty associated with the timetable. The date and time of interaction with Special Procedures should be set and maintained so that all were better placed to participate in them.

SAMUEL NANG NANG (Gabon) excused themselves for their absence during the vote. If they had been present, they would have voted in favour of the three resolutions.

Concluding Remarks by the President of the Council

DORU ROMULUS COSTEA (President of the Human Rights Council), in his concluding statement, said the programme of work for the Council was a living document. There was however a need for predictability in the work. The forward-programme was now broadly established. The Council should make preparations according to the calendar that was now published. The Council had completed three weeks of intensive meetings. It had made progress in adopting the institution-building text. It had set in motion the review, rationalization and improvement of mandates and had agreed to continue and intensify consultations on the approach and methodology. As he had repeatedly stated, this was “work in progress”. He was confident that the Council would live up to expectations in the important work that lay ahead. He indicated that there would be an organisational meeting before the second part of the sixth session in December, and reminded the delegations of the open-ended informative consultations, to be held on Monday, 1 October, on the conduct of the Special Session on Myanmar, scheduled for Tuesday, 2 October.

For use of the information media; not an official record

HRC07073E