COUNCIL EXTENDS MANDATES ON USE OF MERCENARIES AND VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN, APPOINTS INDEPENDENT EXPERT ON SAFE DRINKING WATER

The Human Rights Council this morning decided to extend for a period of three years the mandates 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 and of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences. It appointed for a period of three years an Independent Expert on human rights obligations related to access to safe drinking water and sanitation.

The Council also adopted texts on the effects of climate change on the enjoyment of human rights, prevention of genocide, the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, human rights and extreme poverty, missing persons, the rights of the child, and on the occupied Syrian Golan.

Of the ten resolutions adopted this morning, two were adopted by a vote and eight by consensus without a vote.

A resolution extended the mandate 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 for a period of three years, requesting the Working Group to elaborate and present concrete proposals on possible new standards, general guidelines or basic principles encouraging the further protection of human rights, in particular the right of peoples to self-determination, while facing current and emergent threats posed by mercenaries or mercenary-related activities. It was adopted by a vote of 32 in favour, 11 against and 2 abstentions.

Another resolution strongly condemned all acts of violence against women and girls, and called for the elimination of all forms of gender-based violence, in accordance with the Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women. It extended the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences, for a period of three years and was adopted without a vote.

A resolution appointed for a period of three years an Independent Expert on the issue of human rights obligations related to access to safe drinking water and sanitation, whose tasks would be to develop a dialogue with Governments, the relevant United Nations bodies, the private sector, local authorities, national human rights institutions, civil society organizations and academic institutions, to identify, promote and exchange views on best practices related to access to safe drinking water and sanitation, and, in that regard, to prepare a compendium of best practices. It was adopted without a vote.

In other decisions, the Council adopted a resolution in which it requested the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) to conduct a detailed analytical study of the relationship between climate change and human rights. Another resolution called upon States that had not yet ratified or acceded to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide to consider doing so as a matter of high priority. A resolution encouraged States that were in the process of signing, ratifying or acceding to the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance to complete their internal procedures towards those ends. Another resolution affirmed that the fight against extreme poverty must remain a high priority for the international community and invited OHCHR to organize a three-day seminar on the draft guiding principles. A resolution called upon States that were parties to an armed conflict to take all appropriate measures to prevent persons from going missing in connection with armed conflict and to account for persons reported missing as a result of such a situation. Another resolution called on States to take action for the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and to protect and promote the rights of the child and non-discrimination against children, including children in difficult situations.

The Council, in a resolution, said that the Israeli decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the occupied Syrian Golan was null and void and without international legal effect, and demanded that Israel should rescind forthwith its decision. It also called upon Israel to desist from changing the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure and legal status of the occupied Syrian Golan. It was adopted by a vote of 32 in favour, 1 against, and 14 abstentions.

Speaking as concerned countries were Israel and Syria.

Speaking to introduce the resolutions, or in general comments or explanations of the vote before the vote were Cuba, Slovenia on behalf of the European Union, Sri Lanka, Germany, Spain, the Russian Federation, Canada, Nigeria, Maldives, Pakistan, Japan, Egypt on behalf of the African Group and in a national capacity, Bangladesh, Armenia, Azerbaijan, France, Uruguay and Switzerland

When the Human Rights Council resumes its work this afternoon at 3 p.m., it will continue to take action on draft resolutions and decisions tabled during the current session before concluding its seventh regular session.


Resolutions on the Promotion and Protection of All Human Rights, Civil, Political, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Including Right to Development

Resolution on Mandate of Working Group on Use of Mercenaries

In a resolution (A/HRC/7/L.7/Rev.1) on the mandate 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, adopted by a vote of 32 in favour, 11 against, and 2 abstentions, the Council decides to extend the mandate 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 for a period of three years to elaborate and present concrete proposals on possible new standards, general guidelines or basic principles encouraging the further protection of human rights, in particular the right of peoples to self-determination, while facing current and emergent threats posed by mercenaries or mercenary-related activities; to seek opinions and contributions from Governments and intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations on questions relating to its mandate; to monitor mercenaries and mercenary-related activities in all their forms and manifestations in different parts of the world; to study and identify emerging issues, manifestations and trends regarding mercenaries or mercenary-related activities and their impact on human rights; to monitor and study the effects on the enjoyment of human rights of the activities of private companies offering military assistance, consultancy and security services on the international market and to prepare a draft of international basic principles that encourage respect for human rights by those companies in their activities; also decides to authorize the Working Group to hold three sessions per year of five working days each, two in Geneva and one in New York; requests the Working Group to continue the work already done by the previous Special Rapporteurs on the strengthening of the international legal framework for the prevention and sanction of the recruitment, use, financing and training of mercenaries, taking into account the proposal for a new legal definition of a mercenary drafted by the Special Rapporteur in his report to the Commission on Human Rights at its sixtieth session; requests the Working Group to consult States, intergovernmental organizations, non-governmental organizations and other relevant actors of civil society in the implementation of the present resolution and to report its findings on the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination to the General Assembly at its sixty-third session and to the Council in 2009.

The results of the vote were as follows:

In favour (32): Angola, Azerbaijan, 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 (11): Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Republic of Korea, Romania, Slovenia and United Kingdom.

Abstentions (2): Switzerland and Ukraine.

YURY GALA (Cuba), introducing draft resolution L.7/Rev.1, said that the use of mercenaries as a means of impeding the right to self-determination was an important issue to address within the Council. Cuba and the co-sponsors wished to renew the mandate of the Working Group for a period of three years. The resolution also authorized the Working Group to hold three sessions a year on its findings, two of which would be held in Geneva and one in New York. Cuba expressed its appreciation to the Office of the High Commissioner for its support for convening in Panama the regional governmental consultation for Latin American and Caribbean States on traditional and new forms of mercenary activities as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination, in particular regarding the effects of the activities of private military and security companies on the enjoyment of human rights. Finally, Cuba expressed the wish that the Council would adopt this resolution with the greatest possible support, thus showing the Council’s resolve to address this pertinent issue.

ANDREJ LOGAR (Slovenia), speaking on behalf of the European Union, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that the European Union continued to believe that the issue of the use of mercenaries was outstanding and that their use could lead to dangerous situations that could endanger armed conflicts. The issue of mercenaries deserved to be addressed by the United Nations, but the European Union did not believe that it should be dealt with by the Human Rights Council and that it was a human rights problem, thus the European Union would call for a vote and would vote against the resolution.

DAYAN JAYATILLEKA (Sri Lanka) said Sri Lanka would vote in favor of the resolution as those in the global South had witnessed traumatic experiences with regard to the use of mercenaries emanating from an alliance of corporate business and metropolitan centers. The resurgence of mercenaries under the term contractors in conflicts in the South was also a reason for voting in favour of the resolution.

Resolution on Human Rights and Access to Safe Drinking Water and Sanitation

In a resolution (A/HRC/7/L.16) on human rights and access to safe drinking water and sanitation, adopted without a vote, the Council decides to appoint, for a period of three years, an Independent Expert on the issue of human rights obligations related to access to safe drinking water and sanitation, whose tasks will be to develop a dialogue with Governments, the relevant United Nations bodies, the private sector, local authorities, national human rights institutions, civil society organizations and academic institutions, to identify, promote and exchange views on best practices related to access to safe drinking water and sanitation, and, in that regard, to prepare a compendium of best practices; to advance the work by undertaking a study on the further clarification of the content of human rights obligations, including non-discrimination obligations, in relation to access to safe drinking water and sanitation; to make recommendations that could help the realization of the Millennium Development Goals, in particular of Goal 7 [environmental sustainability]; to apply a gender perspective; to work in close coordination, while avoiding unnecessary duplication, with other special procedures and subsidiary organs of the Council, relevant United Nations bodies and the treaty bodies, and taking into account the views of other stakeholders; and to submit a report, including conclusions and recommendations, to the Council at its tenth session.

REINHARD SCHWEPPE (Germany), introducing the resolution, said that access to drinking water was one of the basic needs. Millions of people had no access to safe water. The Human Rights Council could play an important role in this regard. Access to safe drinking water was an issue of human dignity. 2008 was the international year of sanitation and it was hoped that more attention could be given to this often neglected issue. The proposed mandate was result-oriented. In addition to this annual report the mandated expert should further clarify the human rights obligations linked to the realisation of access to safe drinking water.

JAVIER GARRIGUES FLOREZ (Spain), also introducing the draft, said in promoting the creation of the mandate of the Independent Expert on human rights on access to safe drinking water and sanitation, Spain and Germany had aspired to identify possible existing gaps in efforts to promote and protect human rights with regard to access to water and sanitation, which, in the opinion of Spain, should be eliminated. The recognition that there was work to be done in this area enabled the Council to look at different approaches in the area of safe water and sanitation access which had contributed to a far reaching and participatory debate and identified other problems of human rights in the given subject. By establishing an Independent Expert there would be more multifaceted input on this issue. The Special Procedures thematic mandate holders should have a term of office of three years to complete their work. Spain hoped that this draft resolution would be adopted by consensus.

ALEXEY GOLTYAEV (Russian Federation), in a general comment, said that during consultations, the Russian Federation had expressed its concern with the adoption of new issues that were not in line with the Council’s agenda. Addressing such issues would only complicate the work of the Council. Nevertheless, the delegation would not break the consensus of the Council and if put to a vote, would vote for this resolution.

SARAH GEH (Canada), in a general comment, said that as the High Commissioner had highlighted it in her report, access to safe drinking water and sanitation was not considered as a human right, but this topic was impacting the enjoyment of human rights. Canada had joined the consensus. Canada noted that this did not mean the creation of a human right on the right to water. It was hoped that the creation of an Independent Expert on this topic would help settle the fact that there was currently no agreement on the issue of the right to water.

OSITADINMA ANAEDU (Nigeria), in a general comment, said access to safe drinking water and sanitation was basic for the developmental aspects of life to be enforced. Nigeria had supported these types of resolutions previously, although it was concerned that certain aspects had not been addressed in the resolution. It was the view of Nigeria, and that of a number of developing countries, that the draft resolution fell short in that it did not address the issue of technical assistance which would do well to make the mandate more practical.

Resolution on Human Rights and Climate Change

In a resolution (A/HRC/7/L.21/Rev.1) on human rights and climate change, adopted without a vote, the Council decides to request the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), in consultation with and taking into account the views of States, other relevant international organizations and intergovernmental bodies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and other stakeholders, to conduct, within existing resources, a detailed analytical study of the relationship between climate change and human rights, to be submitted to the Council prior to its tenth session; encourages States to contribute to the study conducted by OHCHR; and decides to consider the issue at its tenth session under agenda item 3, and thereafter to make available the study, together with a summary of the debate held during its tenth session, to the Conference of Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change for its consideration.

ABDUL GHAFOOR MOHAMED (Maldives), introducing the resolution, said that the Maldives believed that the large number of co-sponsors of this resolution coming from all regional groups was indicative of the importance of the issue of climate change. It was also an issue of existential importance to the Maldives. Its future as a viable state would be decided by the success or failure of negotiations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. This resolution dealt with the impact of the phenomenon on human beings. Developing an understanding of the impact of climate change on human rights was important. The resolution was a procedural one; it requested the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to conduct a study into the relationship between human rights and climate change. The Maldives was hoped that the resolution would be adopted by consensus.

ALEXEY GOLTYAEV (Russian Federation), in a general comment, said the Russian Federation fully recognized the importance of the issue of climate change and the responsibility of the international community in the area of combating global warming and other such phenomenon. The Russian Federation maintained that it was counter productive to place this issue in the Human Rights Council. The United Nations system already had enough specialized fora with authority in this regard, among them the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Second Committee of the United Nations General Assembly. The Russian Federation doubted that the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights had the necessary expertise to undertake a study on this issue. However, the Russian Federation would not break the consensus.

MARGHOOB SALEEM BUTT (Pakistan), speaking in a general comment on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), congratulated and fully supported the sponsors for addressing the concerns shared by almost all of the Council. The OIC hoped that this resolution would be adopted by consensus. The issue of climate change spilled onto other human rights issues, including the right to development. Lastly, the OIC looked forward to continuing this discussion within the Council.

AKIO ISOMATA (Japan), in a general comment, said that Japan was concerned by the effects that climate change could bring on to the enjoyment of human rights, especially this impact on small island countries. Japan fully supported this resolution. As a host country of the G8 Summit this July, Japan had actively been contributing to the issue of climate change in collaboration with the international community.

AMEERAJWAD OMER LEBBE (Sri Lanka), in a general comment, said climate change was a global problem and the world’s poor were especially vulnerable to this problem. Climate change affected the human rights of millions of people at risk of losing access to housing, food, clean water and education; even their right to life was under threat. Sri Lanka felt this issue was timely and deserved the attention of the Human Rights Council. The Government of Sri Lanka looked forward to contributing to the study called for by the resolution. As the international community was celebrating the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it was particularly important to include climate change as a rights issue in this campaign to ensure that vulnerable communities affected by the negative effects of climate change enjoyed the full respect of human rights.

IHAB GAMALELDIN (Egypt), speaking in a general comment on behalf of the African Group, said that the African Group was fully cognizant of the dangers posed by climate change and the impact that it had on the enjoyment of human rights. It realized the existential threat of climate change and noted the effect of desertification on a number of African countries. Climate change also had other effects, including the exacerbation of poverty in many regions. The African Group emphasized that support for this resolution would prove the Council’s commitment to deal with climate change.

MUSTAFIZUR RAHMAN (Bangladesh) in a general comment, said that climate change was the biggest threat the world was facing today. It was resulting in extreme weather conditions. These changes had great impact on the enjoyment of human rights of livelihood and shelter among others. No countries were protected and this was a global phenomena. All parties had to be part of the solution. The broad consultations conducted by the Maldives were appreciated and Bangladesh hoped the text would be adopted by consensus.

OSITADINMA ANAEDU (Nigeria), in a general comment, said the issue of climate change could not be overstated as all were witnessing the global warming which was affecting all our lives. Nigeria noted that the process of negotiations on the Kyoto Protocol was on the move with talks in Bangkok next month. Nigeria hoped that the process in the Human Rights Council would not affect this other process in a negative way. The issue touched upon joint responsibility. As certain countries had less in dealing with climate change, there should be financial assistance afforded to support these developing countries. A reference to available capacity resources was absent in the draft resolution.

Resolution on Elimination of Violence against Women

In a resolution (A/HRC/7/L.22/Rev.1) on the elimination of violence against women, adopted without a vote, the Council strongly condemns all acts of violence against women and girls, and calls for the elimination of all forms of gender-based violence, in accordance with the Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women, and stresses the need to treat all forms of violence against women and girls as a criminal offence, as well as the duty to provide access to just and effective remedies and specialized assistance to victims; decides to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences, for a period of three years; invites the Special Rapporteur to seek and receive information on violence against women, its causes and its consequences, from Governments, treaty bodies, specialized agencies, other special rapporteurs, and intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations, and to respond effectively to such information; to recommend measures to eliminate all forms of violence against women and its causes, and to remedy its consequences; to work closely with all special procedures and other human rights mechanisms of the Council and with the treaty bodies, and cooperate closely with the Commission on the Status of Women in the discharge of its functions; to continue to adopt a comprehensive and universal approach to the elimination of violence against women, including causes of violence against women related to the civil, cultural, economic, political and social spheres; requests the Special Rapporteur to report to the Council in accordance with its annual programme of work; calls upon all Governments to cooperate with and assist the Special Rapporteur in the performance of his/her mandated tasks; requests Special Procedures of the Council, United Nations organs and bodies, specialized agencies and intergovernmental organizations, and encourages the human rights treaty bodies, to continue to give consideration to violence against women and girls within their respective mandates, and to cooperate with and assist the Special Rapporteur; and requests the Secretary-General to ensure that the reports of the Special Rapporteur are brought to the attention of the Commission on the Status of Women, the General Assembly and the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, and requests the Special Rapporteur to present an oral report annually to the Commission and to the Assembly.

CYNTHIA TAYLOR (Canada), introducing the resolution, said that this resolution was procedural in nature, focusing on the renewal of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women. Consultations had been held in order to achieve consensus on the wording of the text. Canada hoped that the resolution would be adopted with consensus like in other years.

GALINA KHVAN (Russian Federation), in a general comment, stressed that the Russian Federation attached great importance to countering violence against women in all its forms. The Russian delegation expressed concern that the main sponsors of the resolution created conditions in which the process of the work on the text lost all transparency. Consultations on this important issue should be carried out in a transparent manner which would enrich the resolution, as well as other issues concerned with combating violence against women.

MARGHOOB SALEEM BUTT (Pakistan), speaking in a general comment on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), said that the consensus adoption of this resolution would be a demonstration of the Council’s commitment to the elimination of all violence against women. The resolution would cover the traditional as well as emerging forms of violence against women. The Special Rapporteur should also look at the role of family in strengthening the fight against violence inflicted on women. Numerous issues, including the scourge of sex tourism, continued to pose challenges to the elimination of violence against women. Finally, the OIC hoped that the Special Rapporteur would continue to work within the Special Procedures mechanisms of the Human Rights Council and with the Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW).

Resolution on Prevention of Genocide

In a resolution (A/HRC/7/L.26/Rev.1) on prevention of genocide, adopted without a vote, the Council calls upon States that have not yet ratified or acceded to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide to consider doing so as a matter of high priority; calls upon all States to cooperate, including through the United Nations system, in strengthening appropriate collaboration among existing mechanisms that contribute to early detection and prevention of massive, serious and systematic violations of human rights, which if not halted, could lead to genocide; recognizes the important role of the Secretary-General in contributing to prompt consideration of early warning or prevention cases, and the functions of the Special Adviser, who collects existing information, liaises with the United Nations system on activities for the prevention of genocide and works to enhance the capacity of the United Nations to analyse and manage information relating to genocide or related crimes; requests all Governments to cooperate fully with the Special Adviser in the performance of his work; underlines the important role of the United Nations human rights system in addressing the challenge of collating information on massive, serious and systematic violations of human rights, and thereby contributing to a better understanding and early warning of complex situations that might lead to genocide; invites the High Commissioner to organize a seminar on the prevention of genocide, with the participation of States, relevant United Nations entities and other international and regional organizations, and to publish a paper on the outcome of the seminar; requests the Secretary-General to make available to the Council at its tenth session an updated report on the efforts of the United Nations system to prevent genocide and on the activities of the Special Adviser, and invites the Special Adviser to an interactive dialogue with the Council at the same session on the progress made in discharging his duties.

ZOHRAB MNATSAKANIAN (Armenia), introducing draft resolution L.26/Rev.1 on the prevention of genocide, said that "never again" was a phrase that had been consistently uttered by the international community on occasions of resurgent genocide to the point of devaluing the meaning of "never again". The draft resolution appeared at a particularly symbolic moment, as the international community embarked on the commemoration of the sixtieth anniversary of both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crimes of Genocide. In the past 60 years the international community had advanced notably in understanding the root causes of the crime and developing concepts of its prevention. The legal frameworks for prevention had also been marked by certain advances.

The practice and the mechanisms of prevention remained the present challenge. The international community had been most encouraged by the initiative of the United Nations Secretary-General in 2004 to create a mechanism for prevention, the Special Adviser on the prevention of genocide. The resolution, once adopted, would be the first of its kind within the Council to focus on the issue of prevention and early warning of genocide. Moreover, to help prevent a deteriorating situation, there existed a clear and distinct role for the United Nations human rights system as far as early warning was concerned. Therefore, the resolution aimed at consolidating the functions of the United Nations human rights machinery, including the Council, and aimed at building solid bridges between the mandate of the Special Adviser and the United Nations human rights system as a whole.

ELCHIN AMIRBAYOV (Azerbaijan), in a general comment, said Azerbaijan supported the resolution, and was one of the co-sponsors. As a country which had suffered from ethnic cleansing, Azerbaijan attached importance to the question of genocide. Azerbaijan was encouraged to see the improvement of awareness raising in the area of genocide and supported the five-point plan proposed by the Special Adviser of the Secretary-General. Each country had the responsibility to protect its population from genocide, but sometimes national capacities could not provide the sufficient support, therefore the efforts of the international community were essential in this regard. Azerbaijan looked forward to actively participate in the seminar called for in the draft resolution.

ALEXEY GOLTYAEV (Russian Federation), in a general comment, said that the consultations on this resolution had been conducted in a very collaborative approach. The resolution raised cross cutting problems and a very clear text was needed. The crime of genocide was one of the most heinous crimes. The Russian Federation believed that it was dangerous to speculate on an accepted definition of genocide. Such crimes should be prevented from happening again.

Resolution on International Convention for the Protection of All Persons
from Enforced Disappearance

In a resolution (A/HRC/7/L.31/Rev.1) on the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, adopted by consensus, the Council encourages States that are in the process of signing, ratifying or acceding to the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance to complete their internal procedures towards those ends in compliance with domestic legislation as expeditiously as possible; encourages all States that have not done so to consider signing, ratifying or acceding to the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance; and invites States to consider joining the campaign to share information on best practices and to work towards the early coming into force of the Convention with the aim of its universality.

JEAN-BAPTISTE MATTEI (France), introducing the draft resolution, said the International Convention on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances initiated a new concept. The future entry into force of this new international instrument depended on the good will of States. Some 20 more ratifications were required for it to enter into force. France had taken the initiative to create a group of friends to promote this instrument to ensure its entry into force as soon as possible; a public awareness campaign had also been launched in this regard, with the support of the families of those who had disappeared and civil society. At a time when the Human Rights Council decided to renew the mandate of the Working Group, the draft resolution sent a simple message to all States to accede to the Convention. The co-sponsors were fully aware that States may not be in the position to complete all necessary procedures to accede to the instrument.

Resolution on Human Rights and Extreme Poverty

In a resolution (A/HRC/7/L.32/Rev.1) on human rights and extreme poverty, adopted without a vote, the Council affirms that the fight against extreme poverty must remain a high priority for the international community; notes with satisfaction the report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the draft guiding principles on extreme poverty and human rights; welcomes the substantial contributions of States, relevant United Nations agencies, intergovernmental organizations, United Nations treaty bodies, the Independent Expert on the question of human rights and extreme poverty, national human rights institutions, non-governmental organizations, and other relevant stakeholders; invites the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to further consult the above-mentioned relevant stakeholders and allow them to comment also on the report of the High Commissioner, including through the organization of a three-day seminar on the draft guiding principles, before March 2009; to submit a report to the Council, no later than its last session of 2009, to allow it to take a decision on the ways forward with a view to a possible adoption of guiding principles on the rights of persons living in extreme poverty.

JEAN-BAPTISTE MATTEI (France), introducing draft resolution L.32/Rev.1 on human rights and extreme poverty, said that, as the former Human Rights Commission and then the Human Rights Council had reaffirmed many times, combating extreme poverty had to remain a high priority for the international community. When, at its second session, the Council had adopted the resolution in which it took note of "draft guiding principles on extreme poverty and human rights: the rights of the poor" and it had asked the High Commissioner to distribute that report to all stakeholders and parties for comments. France thanked the High Commissioner for the effort and for her report on the subject. It confirmed unambiguously that extreme poverty was an obstacle to the full and effective exercise and enjoyment of all human rights. The co-sponsors had decided to renew the process by asking the High Commissioner to continue with the process and to ask stakeholders for comments on her report, and to submit a report to the Council, no later than its last session of 2009, with a view to allowing the Council to take a decision on the ways forward with a view to a possible adoption of guiding principles on the rights of persons living in extreme poverty. The co-sponsors asked that the draft resolution be adopted by consensus.

Resolution on Missing Persons

In a resolution (A/HRC/7/L.33/Rev.1) on missing persons, adopted without a vote, the Council calls upon States that are parties to an armed conflict to take all appropriate measures to prevent persons from going missing in connection with armed conflict and account for persons reported missing as a result of such a situation; calls upon States that are parties to an armed conflict to take all necessary measures, in a timely manner, to determine the identity and fate of persons reported missing in connection with the armed conflict and to provide their family members with all relevant information they have on their fate; requests States to pay the utmost attention to cases of children and women reported missing in connection with armed conflicts; invites States that are parties to an armed conflict to cooperate fully with the International Committee of the Red Cross in establishing the fate of missing persons and to adopt a comprehensive approach to this issue; decides to hold a panel discussion on the question of missing persons at its ninth session and to invite experts of the International Committee of the Red Cross, delegates of Governments and non-governmental organizations as well as national human rights institutions and international organizations to participate therein and requests the High Commissioner to prepare a summary of the panel’s deliberations with a view to subsequently tasking during the same session the Advisory Committee to prepare a study on best practices on the matter; invites relevant human rights mechanisms and procedures, as appropriate, to address the problem of persons reported missing in connection with armed conflicts in their forthcoming reports to the Council; and requests the Secretary-General to submit a comprehensive report on the implementation of the present resolution to the Council before its tenth session.

ELCHIN AMIRBAYOV (Azerbaijan), introducing the resolution, said that this was a traditional initiative since the time of the former Commission. The pressing nature of the problem and the related grave situation on the ground as well as its harsh humanitarian impact, had kept the initiative relevant. The main thrust lay in the protection and promotion of human rights of persons reported to be missing, as a result of armed conflict, and of their families. Several events on that matter had taken place in the last years, amongst which was the adoption by the General Assembly of a resolution on the matter in 2006.

Resolution on the Rights of the Child

In a resolution (A/HRC/7/L.34) on the rights of the child, adopted without a vote, the Council calls on States to take action in a number of areas, including implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, with regard to which it calls upon States parties to designate, establish or strengthen relevant governmental structures for children and to ensure adequate and systematic training in the rights of the child for professional groups working with and for children; mainstreaming of the rights of the child, in which the Council decides to incorporate into its programme of work sufficient time, at a minimum an annual full day meeting, to discuss different specific themes on the rights of the child, and to assess the effective integration of the rights of the child in its work, beginning in 2009; protecting and promoting the rights of the child and non-discrimination against children, including children in difficult situations, in which the Council calls on or urges States, inter alia: to take measures to change attitudes that condone or normalize any form of violence against children, including harmful traditional practices and all forms of sexual violence; to allow for the registration of the child immediately after birth, irrespective of his/her status; to address, as a matter of priority, the vulnerabilities faced by children affected by and living with HIV; to ensure the full and equal enjoyment by girls of all human rights and fundamental freedoms; to ensure the dignity of children with disabilities; to prevent violations of the rights of children working and/or living on the street; and to abolish by law, as soon as possible, the death penalty and life imprisonment without possibility of release for those under the age of 18 years at the time of the commission of the offence; with regard to the area of prevention and eradication of the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography, the Council calls on States to take all necessary measures to eliminate, criminalize and penalize effectively all forms of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse of children, including within the family or for commercial purposes; concerning children affected by armed conflict, all States are called upon to pay special attention to the protection, welfare and rights of girls affected by armed conflict; and, finally, with regard to follow-up, the Secretary-General is requested to submit to the Council at its tenth session a report on the rights of the child; and the Special Rapporteur on the sale of children is also requested to submit a report to the Council.

ALEJANDRO ARTUCIO RODRIGUEZ (Uruguay), introducing the draft resolution on the rights of the child, said this was an initiative that had been addressed earlier during the former Commission on Human Rights with the sole importance of having States implement their commitments on the rights of the child. This was the first time this resolution was before the Human Rights Council since its creation for its consideration. The resolution took as a base the Convention on the Rights of the Child and its Optional Protocols, as well as former resolutions adopted by the former Commission on Human Rights in this area. Through this draft, it was proposed that future work be undertaken with a focused and thematic analysis in future sessions of the Council in order to generate areas for interactive dialogue thus enabling a greater depth into the best practices in the area of the rights of the child. It was necessary for the Council to have a more effective, regular and systematic way in its programme of work. Uruguay introduced a number of oral amendments to the draft text.

AMR ROSHDY HASSAN (Egypt), in a general comment, praised the manner with which the sponsors had conducted consultations on this draft resolution. However, one minor remark was that this resolution was a 19-page document, which was longer than the Special Rapporteur’s report. Egypt hoped that next time the sponsors would present a rather more streamlined and shorter text in order for delegations to have time to consider the document.

NATALIE KOHLI (Switzerland), in a general comment, said that the protection and promotion of the rights of the child was one of the highest priorities of Switzerland. Switzerland had traditionally been a sponsor of this resolution, despite the fact that such resolutions did not really promote the discussion of the issue. Since the Council was dealing with the rights of the child, it would have been an excellent opportunity to develop a novel, short, focused approach with concrete commitments, which would have clarified the respective spheres of the General Assembly and the Council in this area. Despite new language on the mainstreaming of the rights of the child into the work of the Council and the point about parents in conflict with the law, the text did not add anything new. For that reason, Switzerland had not joined the resolution as a co-sponsor. Switzerland nevertheless thanked Uruguay for its tireless efforts to achieve a consensus text.

MUSTAFIZUR RAHMAN (Bangladesh), in a general comment, said Bangladesh attached great importance to the protection of the rights of the child and was a State party to the Convention on the Rights of the Child and its two Optional Protocols. It was also a matter of concern that the text was very long and it was difficult to extract any clear message that it wished to convey. The text should be short, focused and have targeted actions.

Resolution on Human Rights Situation in Palestine and other Occupied Arab Territories

Resolution on Human Rights in the Occupied Syrian Golan

In a resolution (A/HRC/7/L.2) on human rights in the occupied Syrian Golan, adopted by a vote of 32 in favour, 1 against, and 14 abstentions, the Council calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to comply with the relevant resolutions of the General Assembly, the Security Council and the Human Rights Council, particularly Security Council resolution 497 (1981), in which the Council decided that the Israeli decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the occupied Syrian Golan is null and void and without international legal effect, and demanded that Israel should rescind forthwith its decision; also calls upon Israel to desist from changing the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure and legal status of the occupied Syrian Golan, and emphasizes that the displaced persons of the population of the occupied Syrian Golan must be allowed to return to their homes and to recover their property; further calls upon Israel to desist from imposing Israeli citizenship and Israeli identity cards on the Syrian citizens in the occupied Syrian Golan and to desist from its repressive measures against them; calls upon Israel to allow the Syrian population of the occupied Syrian Golan to visit their families and relatives in the Syrian motherland through the Quneitra checkpoint and under the supervision of the International Committee of the Red Cross; further calls upon Israel to release immediately the Syrian detainees in Israeli prisons, some of whom have been detained for over 22 years and calls on Israel to treat them in conformity with the international humanitarian law; calls upon Israel to allow delegates of the International Committee of the Red Cross, accompanied by specialized physicians, to visit Syrian prisoners of conscience and detainees in Israeli prisons; requests the Secretary-General to bring the present resolution to the attention of all Governments, to disseminate it as widely as possible and to report on the matter to the Human Rights Council at its tenth session.

In favour (32): Angola, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Brazil, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Gabon, Ghana, 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 (1): Canada.

Abstentions (14): Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cameroon, France, Germany, Guatemala, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Republic of Korea, Romania, Slovenia, Switzerland, Ukraine and United Kingdom.


MARGHOOB SALEEM BUTT (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Member States of the Organization of the Islamic Conference and of the Group of Arab States that were members of the Human Rights Council, introducing draft resolution L.2 on the human rights situation in the occupied Syrian Golan, said that Israel had occupied the Syrian Golan in 1967 and since that date it had committed continuous and systematic violations of all human rights, including the imposition of Israeli citizenship on the Syrian citizens there, and the prohibition of visits of the Syrian citizens to their relatives and families in Syria, in addition to the detention and prosecution of whoever peacefully refused those measures. The text of the draft resolution focused on those issues, calling on Israel to desist from imposing Israeli citizenship and Israeli identity cards on Syrian citizens, and its repressive measures against them. It also called for the immediate release of the Syrian detainees in Israeli prisons, some of whom had been detained for more than 22 years. The sponsors of the draft resolution had held extensive consultations to accommodate as many points of view as possible on this clear case of human rights violations.

ITZHAK LEVANON (Israel), speaking as a concerned country, said Israel had come into the possession of the Syrian Golan in 1967 following two decades of hostilities by Syria making it impossible for those in the valley to live a decent life. Syrian propaganda pretended that prior to 1967 half a million people lived in the Syrian Golan and suggested they had since been displaced. Close to 53,000 actually lived in the area at that date, according to reliable sources and it had been under military control. Syrian propaganda also suggested that those living in the Golan did not enjoy their liberties. Those living in the Golan were eligible to Israeli citizenship if they wished, and enjoyed all the human rights as guaranteed by law. They lived in a democracy with freedom of expression, opinion and belief. The outlandish allegations with regard to the treatment of prisoners in the Golan also raised an eyebrow. There was also a fabrication on the part of the Syrian with regard to visits to detainees. These detainees were visited by the ICRC.

FAYSAL KHABBAZ HAMOUI (Syria), speaking as a concerned country, said that the draft resolution tackled the many violations carried out by the Israeli regime. Despite the adoption of several resolutions by the United Nations system, Israel continued its plan to Judaise the Golan. Israel continued to violate the economic, social and cultural rights of Syrians and the Human Rights Council had to condemn these violations. The Israeli authorities could not go unpunished. The Human Rights Council had to request Israel to respect its international obligations. Syria hoped that the Council would adopt the resolution; it would constitute moral support to the Syrian inhabitants of the Syrian Golan.

ANDREJ LOGAR (Slovenia), speaking on behalf of the European Union, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said the European Union regretted that it could not support draft resolution L.2. The European Union underscored the need to safeguard the rights of the Syrian population in the Syrian Golan, but could not agree with the wording of the text, especially where prisoners of conscience were concerned and the conditions of their detention. Their situation had not been substantiated and therefore did not warrant the language in the text. The European Union could only support the texts in this forum that took a balanced position on the occupied Syrian Golan. For that reason the European Union called for a vote and would itself abstain on the draft resolution.

MARIUS GRINIUS (Canada), in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said Canada recognized that the Golan Heights were occupied territories and did not recognize permanent Israeli control over the territories occupied in 1967. Canada also supported the concept that the peace process must be based on Security Council resolutions 242 and 338. Canada had serious concerns that the resolution did not provide a balanced assessment of the human rights situation in the region and did not contribute to a peaceful and fair solution to the conflict. Therefore, Canada decided to vote against the resolution.


For use of information media; not an official record

HRC08043E