HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL CONCLUDES DISCUSSION ON FOLLOW-UP AND IMPLEMENTATION OF VIENNA DECLARATION AND PROGRAMME OF ACTION

The Human Rights Council this afternoon concluded its general debate on the follow-up and implementation of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, which it began this morning.

During the general debate, delegations raised a number of issues pertaining to, among other things, the elaboration of an Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, trafficking in persons, the rights of women and the equality of men and women, and the rights of the child and children in armed conflict.

Many speakers expressed thanks to the Working Group tasked with drafting the Optional Protocol, while stressing the need to place the rights enshrine therein to be on equal footing with civil and political rights and for international cooperation to address the implementation of all human rights. Other speakers underscored the importance of bearing in mind the universality, indivisibility, interdependence and interrelation of all human rights.

A number of speakers expressed concern about the situation in Tibet, eliciting points of order from China and other delegations who protested making country-specific statements under this agenda item. The President of the Council urged all speakers to stick to the agenda item under discussion. The meeting was suspended for some time. At the end of the meeting, China spoke in a right of reply.

Speaking in the general debate on the follow-up and implementation of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action were representatives of Mexico, Switzerland, Japan, Peru, Bangladesh, Cuba, Angola, Brazil, Portugal, Chile, Belgium, Spain, Finland, Morocco, the United States and Australia.

Also speaking during the general debate were representatives of the International Coordinating Committee of National Human Rights Institutions, Conseil consultatif des droits de l'homme du Maroc, Asian Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Network, on behalf of severals NGOs1, International Federation of University Women, European Region of the International Lesbian and Gay Federation, in a joint statement with Canadian HIV/Aids Legal Network, Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples, Interfaith International, Amnesty International, Society for Threatened Peoples, International Commission of Jurists, Association for World Education in a joint statement with International Humanist and Ethical Union, Reporters Without Border and Human Rights Watch.

When the Human Rights Council reconvenes at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, 26 March, it will hold a general debate on racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related forms of intolerance, follow-up and implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action.


General Debate on Follow-up and Implementation of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action

MARIANA OLIVERA WEST (Mexico) said that on the occasion of the fifteenth anniversary of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, Mexico reaffirmed its full support to its implementation and the need of the international community to strive towards that end. With regard to the elaboration of an Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Mexico was of the view that this was a crucial and important step in placing all human rights on an equal footing with those recognized at the Vienna Conference and contained within the programme of work and declaration. Mexico was convinced that the optional protocol would yield benefits in the pursuance of achieving all human rights. Mexico believed that the Working Group should strengthen its commitment to finalize the process of establishing an optional protocol in order to provide a better system for the protection of victims of human rights violations. It was essential to adopt an instrument to give a cohesive approach to the rights enshrined in the Vienna Declaration.

MURIEL BERSET (Switzerland) said that it had been 15 years since the adoption of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action. Frankly, the world could not congratulate itself for having accomplished considerable progress on the implementation of this Programme of Action. Entire chapters remained unimplemented and unwritten. One example was the rights of children which occupied an important place in the Vienna Declaration. The Government of Switzerland wished to express its concern regarding the erosion of children’s rights, even in certain States that were party to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Girls were often doubly vulnerable. Infanticide and female genital mutilation were the most radical manifestations of this truth and constituted extremely serious threats to the development of societies.

Switzerland said that the use of children in armed conflicts was another source of concern. States had to ensure that children were not recruited or used in armed conflicts. Furthermore, women’s rights needed to be reinforced. Women should not be deprived of their rights and the Government wished to remind Council members of article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which stated that all were equal before the law and deserved equal protection under the law. Human rights were universal and indivisible. Finally, the situation in Tibet was disconcerting and Switzerland appealed to the Chinese authorities to refrain from any excessive use of force and to release peaceful demonstrators that had been detained.

OSAMU YAMANAKA (Japan) said that Japan attached great importance to the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action. Japan had made many efforts to fight the sexual abuse of children. It was well known that through Internet technology, harmful material could be easily transmitted. This issue required the attention of the international community. Japan had also been working on the subject of trafficking of persons. A task force had been established and brochures had been published in this regard. Concrete actions should be taken by States. On the subject of leprosy, it was now a curable disease but prejudice against leprosy-affected persons and those who had recovered from it continued to exist. The Government of Japan had taken several measures to eliminate this discrimination.

ALEJANDRO NEYRA SANCHEZ (Peru) said that thanks to the work of the Working Group on the elaboration of an Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Peru was of the view that the Working Group at its next session would be able to achieve positive results, to which Peru attached great importance. Peru believed that the two basic elements to bear in mind when establishing an optional protocol to the Covenant was that the optional protocol should be an instrument allowing for the effective implementation of the Covenant, thus placing it on equal footing with other international instruments on human rights. Peru was also not in favour of including an alternative denomination that would differentiate between obligations that States had. Peru hoped that the Working Group would be able to finalize its work during its forthcoming session.

MUSTAFIZUR RAHMAN (Bangladesh) said that the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action was a milestone in the progress of human rights. In this declaration, the universality, inter-relatedness and indivisibility of all human rights were reaffirmed. These core values could not be fully upheld if certain rights were over-emphasized vis-a-vis others. The right to development was an inalienable part of human rights. It was disappointing to note that work on the right to development had been slow to evolve. Members of the Council should work together to advance this particular goal.

Bangladesh believed that there was a need for greater international cooperation to address the implementation of human rights, especially with regards to economic, social and cultural rights. The Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action was a positive start but it needed to be reinforced by actual changes on the ground. Additionally, violence against women was an issue that needed to be dealt with urgently and complimented by an education programme to inform women about their rights.

YURI GALA (Cuba) said that Cuba attached the greatest importance to the universality, indivisibility, interdependence and interrelation of human rights. The effective application of these principles was still a challenge that had not been met. The fact was that a few months before the sixtieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the goal which the international community had set for economic, social and cultural rights to be on the same foot with political rights had not yet been attained. More than forty years after the adoption of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, these rights were still not plainly recognized. This situation also had an effect on the full enjoyment of civil and political rights. Contrary to what was expressed by some about the impossibility to measure to which effect these rights were being enjoyed, the reality was that the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights was even easier to measure. States had obligations to meet under the Covenant. The adoption of the optional protocol would be an important contribution for the realisation of economic, social and cultural rights. The Working Group on the elaboration of the optional protocol was scheduled to meet again to analyse the second draft protocol. The group had made several improvements. All delegations were appealed to make efforts.

ARCANJO MARIA DO NASCIMENTO (Angola) said that the Vienna Declaration reaffirmed the principle of equality and status of all human rights. Angola was of the view that dividing rights into categories actually concealed what was common to all human rights. Methods to protect human rights might be different due to the varying capabilities of States. The inherent characteristic and nature that human rights must be implemented in the same way did not justify separate categories for these rights. This also ignored certain historical perspectives of these rights. Angola believed that the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights would complement the African Charter on Human Rights and that this new instrument would lead to greater coherence and protection of economic, social and cultural rights and a clearer vision to individuals of their rights. It would also accentuate States’ obligations in that regard. In some countries there had been a clear retraction of these rights as a result of globalization. The optional protocol was desirable and should be brought about by a well-grounded dialogue. The progress achieved by the Working Group was significant in seeking a compromise acceptable to all stakeholders and it was hoped that a compromise document would be adopted as soon as possible.

MURILO VIEIRA KOMNISKI (Brazil) said that Brazil wished to join in the efforts of all regions to support the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action. For the whole Latin American group, the Government wished to strengthen all mechanisms on the right to development. The Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, currently being worked on, would be a positive step to realizing this right. There could not be any selectivity within human rights. Economic, social and cultural rights deserved the same level of importance as civil and political rights and this non-selectivity would ensure the indivisibility and universality of all rights. Conversations surrounding the Optional Protocol had been constructive and the Government of Brazil felt that it could be drafted before the end of the year. In this respect, Brazil encouraged States to work towards this goal in 2008, a year which was marked by the sixtieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the fifteenth anniversary of the Vienna Declaration.

FRANCISCO XAVIER ESTEVES (Portugal) said that the adoption of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action had been a major step forward for the protection and promotion of human rights worldwide. On the basis of the decisions taken there, many had been working to elaborate an Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. This instrument would help to put these rights on the same footing as civil and political rights. Much progress in the drafting of this document has been done since the start of the negotiations. It was now time for everybody to assume their responsibilities and to finally fully implement the decision of the Vienna Declaration in this regard. An a la carte approach would run against the universality of human rights. The Optional Protocol would not create any new obligations but was only aimed at creating a procedure that would facilitate the realization of existing obligations.

ALEJANDRO ROGERS (Chile), after thanking the Chairperson of the Working Group charged with elaborating an Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, said Chile believed that the Human Rights Council was currently at a critical stage as it now had to decide upon the approach the optional protocol should have. This approach must be comprehensive and there should be no hierarchy established for the rights covered in the Covenant. States parties to the Covenant must protect the rights enshrined therein on an equal footing. A different approach would weaken the Covenant. The indivisibility of all human rights, as outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, had consequently entailed the interrelationship between civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights. The optional protocol should contemplate measures for effective recourse for all of them, such as international compensation in instances of violations.

BART OUVRY (Belgium) said that the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights had been in discussion for a number of years but the negotiations were finally arriving to a fruitful conclusion. The Government of Belgium was confident that at the beginning of April, the Working Group would manage to complete this work. In supporting the cause for economic, social and cultural rights, the Council was finally ready to implement the motto of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, that was to say that all human rights were universal, indivisible, interdependent and inter-related. Moreover, Belgium was pleased to note the declaration and discussion on the issue of female genital mutilation within the last session of the Commission on the Status of Women. Female genital mutilation was a concern for women’s health and, given its increasing prevalence on young girls, was a violation of the rights of the child. In this regard, Belgium applauded certain African countries for taking a firm stance on this particularly sensitive issue.

MARIA REYES FERNANDEZ BULNES (Spain) said that the Vienna Declaration was one of the pillars of the fabric of international standards for human rights. Spain welcomed the adoption of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, as it attached great importance to that topic. The Council had to continue to devote its attention to the enjoyment of rights by people with disabilities, and civil society should participate in that discussion. On the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Spain fully supported it. It was not a question of adding more rules, but of providing an instrument for communications, and preserving the indivisibility and universality of human rights. Spain hoped that a definitive text would be achieved soon.

PEKKA METSO (Finland), noting that States had reaffirmed their commitment to fulfil their obligations to promote the protection of all human rights and fundamental freedoms through adopting the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, recalled that the Vienna Conference stated that all peoples had the right to freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. Finland was in favour of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights that was currently being negotiated, and considered all human rights universal and indivisible. One of the main principles of Finland’s human rights policies was to lift economic, social and cultural rights up to the same level as civil and political rights. Finland believed that the success of the Optional Protocol depended on the effectiveness of the complaints procedures. Therefore, Finland was of the view that the best starting point in this respect was the comprehensive approach encompassing all the substantive rights laid down in the Covenant.

MOHAMMED LOULICHKI (Morocco) said that Morocco had taken the floor on a number of occasions and addressed numerous human rights issues, which were at the core of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action. The Vienna Conference had recognized the importance of national institutions to ensure the promotion and protection of human rights. On that basis, Morocco considered that a full role should be given to national institutions, in the context of human rights mechanisms and the Universal Periodic Review. Morocco encouraged the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to help national institutions better implement human rights. For its part, Morocco had held an international conference in Rabat on the social responsibilities of companies and had an ombudsman devoted to the advancement of human rights.

WARREN TICHENOR (United States) said that the Vienna Declaration affirmed as a fundamental principle that human rights and fundamental freedoms were the birthright of all human beings and that their protection was the first responsibility of Governments. The American people were deeply troubled by the reports of violence, arrests and loss of life stemming from what began as peaceful protests in Lhasa. The lack of objective on-the-ground reporting from Tibetan areas due to the Government’s refusal to allow access to the areas by journalists was of concern. The United States called on China to exercise restraint in dealing with the protests and for all sides to refrain from violence. It urged China to respect universally recognized rights. Beijing was also encouraged to engage in a substantive dialogue with the Dalai Lama directly.

MIRANDA BROWN (Australia) said that among the main features of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action was the strengthening of nation human rights institutions. Australia encouraged Governments to work within the Paris Principles in that regard. The Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action also aimed to strengthen the systems of protection of children, especially those in armed conflict. The Council had to meet the challenges enshrined in the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action. Australia was saddened by the loss of life in Tibet and urged restraint and the respect of all human rights by all parties. Australia also urged China to allow free access to Tibet and other affected areas to ensure that international monitors and the media might gain an understanding of what was going on there.

KATHARINA ROSE, of the International Coordinating Committee of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, said that the World Conference on Human Rights had encouraged the strengthening of cooperation between national institutions, particularly through the exchange of information and experience, as well as cooperation with regional organizations and the United Nations. The regional integration of national institutions was central to the International Coordinating Committee's efforts to enhance human rights cooperation globally through the promotion and strengthening of national human rights institutions. Furthermore, the Coordinating Committee was working towards the establishment of regional information mechanisms with the aim of increasing the dissemination and exchange of information on human rights issues at both the regional and international level. Finally, it encouraged national human rights institutions to actively participate in sessions of the Council and was committed to ensuring the momentum of such strengthened cooperation was sustained.

MAHJOUB ELHAIBA, of Conseil consultatif des droits de l'homme du Maroc, said that they were engaged in the preparation of a national human rights strategy and plan of action, in follow-up to commitments undertaken by the Moroccan Government. The objective of that project was to strengthen the democratic process in Morocco, and for a better integration of human rights in the country. The Consultative Council had been tasked with the elaboration of a global human rights strategy, in conjunction with the European Commission. They were embarked on the strengthening of human rights documentation and training, as well as on an information campaign for the public at large. As a country embarked on a justice and reconciliation programme, Morocco was striving to forge new practices and attitudes in the domain of human rights and would repair any past errors.

NGAWANG CHOEPHEL, of Asian Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Network, on behalf of several NGOs1, said they deeply regretted the slow pace at which progress was being made towards the establishment of a regional human rights mechanism in Asia, considering growing concerns regarding the human rights situation in the region. The Network remained particularly concerned about China’s lack of national human rights action plans, as neither an independent national human rights institution nor a plan on human rights education had been declared or initiated. The international community should no longer tolerate the ongoing human rights violations against the Tibetan people. Shouldering its responsibilities and membership commitments, and the 2005 World Summit Declaration, which had stipulated the responsibility to protect the human rights of populations when individual States failed to do so, the Network urged the Council to swiftly call upon the Chinese authorities to receive a joint mission of Special Procedures mandate holders as requested on 17 March by 65 non-governmental organizations in a letter to the President and Members of the Council. The Council should take urgent measures and convene a special session to address that urgent situation now.

JACQUELIN KATANESKA, of International Federation of University Women, noted that how children were shaped today determined what the world would be like tomorrow. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child was the most widely adopted convention, having nearly universal ratification. Yet the rights of many children were ignored. One only needed to observe the millions of children roaming the streets in developing countries to observe that reality. The worst situation was when children were forced to work selling their bodies. Female children were particularly vulnerable in that context. In the poorest quarters of the world, where parents had never had access to education, the vicious spiral of extreme poverty was replicated with each generation. Combating poverty was the human and social responsibility of the private sector, community organizations, non-governmental organizations and individuals. On those issues, Governments had to engage in and account for their commitments to the eight Millennium Development Goals, which had to be tackled simultaneously.

JOHN FISCHER, of European Region of the International Lesbian and Gay Federation, in a joint statement with Canadian HIV/Aids Legal Network, said that it was a matter of concern that systemic human rights violations based on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity continued to be drawn to the Council’s attention. The fact that a growing number of States were willing to speak out on those issues was welcomed. However, during this session, some States had questioned the jurisprudential basis on which the human rights of lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender persons had to be recognized and protected. The answer was simple: it was at the core of the Vienna Declaration.

GIANFRANCO FATTORINI, of Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples, recalled that, as noted in the United Nations Charter, the international community had committed itself to upholding the rights of people. Those people included Sahrawis and Tibetans. The Vienna Conference had taken place at a crucial time in history, and it was asked what changes had taken place since the adoption of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action. China was one of the countries that did not have a national human rights institution in accordance with the Paris Principles. The Chinese authorities were urged to establish a national human rights institution in time for the upcoming Olympic Games this year.

MOHAMED KHAYA, of Interfaith International, said that the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action was a milestone in the promotion and protection of human rights. Interfaith International had fought tirelessly to support the Sahrawis in their exercise of the rights to freedom of expression and freedom of movement. The reunification of families had been blocked, and family was the most important nucleus of any society. The Sahrawis wished to exercise that right and wished to find a solution to their dire situation. Sahrawis had been persecuted for years and the International Committee of the Red Cross, having recently visited the area, could attest to the seriousness of the situation.

PATRIZIA SCANELLI, of Amnesty International, said that the Vienna Declaration expressly acknowledged the right of minorities to enjoy their own culture, to practise their religion and to use their own language. Deep concern was expressed over the human rights violations in Tibet. Initial protests had appeared to be peaceful. Amnesty International was aware that protests had later turned violent, with individuals apparently attacked solely for their ethnic identity. The Vienna Declaration could not be adopted in the abstract, thus it had to be linked to specific cases. Amnesty International had previously documented a pattern of torture and ill-treatment of detainees in Tibet.

TENZIN KAYTA, of the Society for Threatened Peoples, said when it came to the implementation of the Vienna Declaration on Human Rights, one might welcome the insertion of the words “respect for human rights” in China’s Constitution. But when China engaged in a people’s war and a life or death struggle against the Tibetan people to suppress more than 35 demonstrations, it was obvious how the Constitution was being implemented. Human rights defenders played a crucial role in monitoring the situation in Tibet, despite the fact that forced disappearances were taking place on a mass scale in Tibet. If there was a real notion of the universality of human rights, as affirmed in the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, then the Society for Threatened Peoples called on the Human Rights Council to convene a special session and to send a fact-finding mission led by Special Procedures of the Council to Tibet.

LUKAS MACHON, of the International Commission of Jurists, said that the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action stipulated the responsibility of all Governments to prevent and protect against all violations of human rights. Urgent measures must be taken in cases of gross and systemic as well as urgent and continuous violations of human rights. The International Commission wished to draw attention to the recent escalation of the situation in Tibet. However, given the Council President’s call to not bring up specific country violations, it would refer to the situation without mentioning China’s name. The International Commission expressed its concern about the fate of those that had been or may be arrested and urged Governments to treat all detainees according to internationally established standards. The Tibetan people had a right to self-determination. A referendum for the Tibetan people to determine the future status of the region would significantly contribute to resolving the political conflict in Tibet.

CLAUDE LEVENSON, of Association for World Education, in a joint statement with International Humanist and Ethical Union, drew attention to what was happening in the world today and the Council was asked to react.

GEORGE GORDON-LENNOX, of Reporters Without Border, said while the Council debated the implementation of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, in the Asia Pacific Region at least in one State, as well as in others, free expression was stifled and the outside world was deprived of independent information on violations of human rights. Reporters Without Borders was outraged by the methods being used to obstruct foreign journalists trying to cover foreign situations and called for the unconditional return of the foreign press. For the repression in Tibet and elsewhere to end, the United Nations must demand the return of foreign journalists and dispatch independent observers to the area. This would be the best way for the Council to promote and protect human rights in this region.

JULIE DE RIVERO, of Human Rights Watch, said that it was the responsibility of all Governments to ensure the protection of human rights, especially those of minorities. Human Rights Watch condemned the decades of repressive policies against minority groups, many of which had been denied freedom of movement and expression. It called on such Governments to release detainees, to fully respect minority groups and their right to peaceful protest, and to provide full access to representatives of the media and credible organizations like the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. No member could call itself a legitimate part of this Council whilst obstructing human rights and fundamental freedoms. Addressing human rights abuses in Tibet was merely one way to assess the spirit of the Vienna Declaration and how effectively it had been carried out.

Right of Reply

QIAN BO (China), speaking in a right of reply, said that China categorically rejected the wilful interference in other countries internal affairs by a number of countries in total disregard of basic facts. The remarks made by some delegations were out of place. The criminal acts of violence by a tiny number of people in some parts of China were by no means peaceful demonstrations. Protesters had committed serious crimes of beating, looting, smashing and arson, and had resorted to cruel and appalling means. The life and property of the people were seriously endangered and the normal social order was disturbed. These demonstrations had been planned and instigated in advance by the Dalai’s “click”, and perpetrated by separatist groups. The violence of the protests showed the hypocrisy of the so-called peaceful protesters. The statements of the European Union and other countries were totally groundless. The Chinese law enforcement personnel had used extreme restraint and no lethal weapons had been carried and used and they had carried out their duties in respect of international practices. The remarks made by some delegations were distortions of facts which confused the right and wrong. Switzerland should honour its commitments under the Vienna Declaration on diplomatic relations and the United States should reflect on its own human rights violations in Iraq and other places in the world. What other country in the world was violating human rights more flagrantly than the United States? The Tibet issue was solely China’s internal affair and was outside the purview of the Council. China was lawfully and appropriately dealing with the situation.


1Joint statement: Asian Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Network; Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA); Center for Organization Research and Education; Asia Pacific Forum on Women, Law and Development; People's Solidarity for Participatory Democracy; Pax Romana; Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples; Society for Threatened Peoples; France Libertés – Fondation Danielle Mitterrand; and International Fellowship of Reconciliation.



For use of the information media; not an official record

HRC08038E