COUNCIL ESTABLISHES NEW EXPERT IN FIELD OF CULTURAL RIGHTS, EXTENDS MANDATE ON DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF KOREA FOR ONE YEAR

The Human Rights Council this afternoon adopted 10 resolutions in which it established an Independent Expert in the field of cultural rights and extended the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea for one year, among others. Five of the resolutions concerned the human rights situation in Palestine and other Arab territories and others dealt with the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, combating defamation of religions and implementing the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

On the promotion and protection of cultural rights and respect for cultural diversity, the Council decided to establish for a period of three years the mandate of an Independent Expert on the promotion and protection of cultural rights to work in cooperation with States in order to foster the adoption of measures aimed at the promotion and protection of cultural rights through concrete proposals enhancing sub-regional, regional and international cooperation in that regard; and to identify any existing gaps in the promotion and protection of cultural rights and to submit proposals and/or recommendations to the Council on possible actions to fill such gaps.

On the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the Council expressed serious concern at ongoing grave, widespread and systematic human rights violations in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. The Council commended the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea for the activities undertaken so far and his continued efforts in the conduct of the mandate, despite the limited access to information, and decided to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur for a period of one year. The resolution was passed by a vote of 26 in favour, six against and 15 abstentions.

Under its agenda item on the human rights situation in Palestine and other Arab territories, the Council adopted five resolutions on human rights in the occupied Syrian Golan; on Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan; on human rights violations emanating from the Israeli military attacks and operations in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, particularly the recent ones in the Occupied Gaza Strip; on the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination; and on follow-up to Council resolution S-9/1 on the grave violations of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, particularly due to the recent Israeli military attacks against the occupied Gaza Strip. Four of the five resolutions were passed following a vote.

On human rights in the occupied Syrian Golan, the Council expressed deep concerned at the suffering of the Syrian citizens in the occupied Syrian Golan due to the systematic and continuous violation of their fundamental and human rights by Israel since the Israeli military occupation of 1967. On Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan, the Council deplored the recent Israeli announcements of the construction of new housing units for Israeli settlers in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, as they undermined the peace process and the creation of a contiguous, sovereign and independent Palestinian State. On human rights violations emanating from the Israeli military attacks and operations in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, particularly the recent ones in the occupied Gaza Strip, the Council strongly condemned the Israeli military attacks and operations in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, particularly the recent ones in the occupied Gaza Strip. On the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, the Council reaffirmed the inalienable, permanent and unqualified right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, including their right to live in freedom, justice and dignity and to establish their sovereign, independent, democratic and viable contiguous State. On follow-up to Council resolution S-9/1 on the grave violations of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, particularly due to the recent Israeli military attacks against the occupied Gaza Strip, the Council expressed with regret that resolution S-9/1 had not been fully implemented to date and requested the President of the Council to continue his tireless efforts to appoint the independent international fact-finding mission.

On the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, the Council called upon States to ensure that any measure taken to counter terrorism complied with international law, in particular international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law, and in this context expressed serious concern at the violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism.

On combating defamation of religions, the Council strongly deplored all acts of psychological and physical violence and assaults, and incitement thereto, against persons on the basis of their religion or belief, and such acts directed against their businesses, properties, cultural centres and places of worship, as well as targeting of holy sites, religious symbols and venerated personalities of all religions. The Council noted with deep concern the intensification of the overall campaign of defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred in general, including the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001. The resolution was passed by a vote of 23 in favour, 13 against and 11 abstentions.

On the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Optional Protocols thereto, the Council called on the States that had not yet become States parties to the Convention and the Optional Protocols thereto to do so as a matter of priority, and to systematically assess any proposed law, administrative guidance, policy or budgetary allocation that was likely to have an impact on children and their rights, ensuring appropriate enforcement of their obligations under the Convention and the Optional Protocols thereto.

Speaking in introduction of resolutions were Czech Republic on behalf of the European Union, Mexico, Japan, Pakistan on behalf of the Organization for the Islamic Conference and the Arab Group, and Cuba.

Speaking in general comment were Germany and Canada.

Speaking in explanation of the vote before the vote were Cuba, China, Malaysia, Indonesia, Brazil, Germany, Canada, Netherlands, Japan, Angola, Chile and India.

Speaking in explanation of the vote after the vote were Canada and Japan.

Speaking as concerned countries were Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Israel, Syria, and Palestine.


The Council will meet at 10 a.m. on Friday, 27 March, when it will continue to take action on draft decisions and resolutions before concluding the tenth regular session of the Council.


Action on Draft Resolutions on the Promotion and Protection of All Human Rights

In a resolution (A/HRC/10/L.29) on the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Optional Protocols thereto, adopted without a vote as orally amended, the Council calls on the States that have not yet become States parties to the Convention and the Optional Protocols thereto to do so as a matter of priority; calls upon all States parties to systematically assess any proposed law, administrative guidance, policy or budgetary allocation that is likely to have an impact on children and their rights, ensuring appropriate enforcement of their obligations under the Convention and the Optional Protocols thereto; urges all States to develop or renew comprehensive national strategies for children, taking into account the Convention, setting out specific goals, targeted implementation measures and allocation of financial and human resources and including arrangements for monitoring and regular review; calls upon States to make children a priority in their budgetary allocations, including in particular marginalized and disadvantaged groups of children; calls upon all States to establish children’s ombudspersons, commissioners or focal points on the rights of the child in national human rights institutions, which are accessible to children; also calls on all States to ensure that child-sensitive procedures are made available to children so that children have access to means of facilitating effective remedies for any breaches of any of their rights arising from the Convention; further calls on States to develop further effective mechanisms that encourage and facilitate expression by children of their views, in particular with regard to the formulation of public policies from the local level up to the national level and to ensure meaningful participation of children and reflection of their views in monitoring and reporting on the implementation of the Convention; calls on States parties to integrate the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Optional Protocols thereto in the universal periodic review process; requests the High Commissioner for Human Rights to prepare a summary of the full-day meeting on the rights of the child on an annual basis; expresses deep concern at the delay in the appointment of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Violence against Children, and requests the Secretary-General to proceed urgently to that appointment, and to report to the Council at its eleventh session on progress made in this regard; and decides to continue its consideration of the rights of the child and to focus its next resolution and full-day meeting on the fight against sexual violence against children.

PETRA ALI DOLAKOVA (Czech Republic) introducing resolution L.29, said the resolution reflected the twentieth anniversary of the Convention, and encouraged all States to further improve all stages through various means for the development of measures to facilitate children's participation. It supported the important role of the Committee on the Rights of the Child, and requested the Secretary-General to appoint a special procedure on the rights of the child. It was hoped the resolution would be adopted by consensus and would help improve the rights of the child worldwide.

In a resolution (A/HRC/10/L.31) on the Protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, adopted without a vote, the Council calls upon States to ensure that any measure taken to counter terrorism complies with international law, in particular international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law, and in this context expresses serious concern at the violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism; calls upon States and other relevant actors to continue to implement the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy, which, inter alia, reaffirms respect for human rights for all and the rule of law to be the fundamental basis of the fight against terrorism; urges States, while countering terrorism, to protect all human rights, including economic, social and cultural rights; calls upon States, while countering terrorism, to ensure that any person whose human rights or fundamental freedoms have been violated has access to an effective remedy and that victims will receive adequate, effective and prompt reparations where appropriate; urges States, while countering terrorism, to respect the right to be equal before the courts and tribunals and to a fair trial; acknowledges with appreciation the report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights while countering terrorism (A/HRC/10/3); requests the Special Rapporteur to prepare, by seeking information and in consultation with States and other relevant stakeholders, a compilation of good practices on legal and institutional frameworks and measures that ensure respect for human rights by intelligence agencies while countering terrorism, including on their oversight, and to present the compilation in a report to the Council at its thirteenth session; invites the High Commissioner and the Special Rapporteur to contribute further to the ongoing discussion regarding efforts of Member States of the United Nations to assure adequate human rights guarantees to ensure fair and clear procedures, in particular with regard to placing and removing individuals and entities from terrorism-related sanctions lists; and requests the High Commissioner and the Special Rapporteur to present their reports to the Council at its thirteenth session.

JOSE GUEVARA (Mexico), introducing the draft resolution, said that it was an honour to present the draft resolution on the protection of human rights while countering terrorism. This resolution maintained the balance achieved in previous resolutions. It contained tasks to protect human rights while countering terrorism. Terrorism might have an impact on the enjoyment of human rights and the resolution called on the High Commissioner to strengthen contributions in current discussions. It also requested the Special Rapporteur in consultations with States and other stakeholders to produce a compendium on good practices and measures for intelligence agencies and their oversight to protect human rights while countering terrorism. Mexico pointed out that a consultation process was followed which was very inclusive and had invited all delegations to make comments. Mexico expressed its most profound gratitude to all delegations that had contributed to the consultations.

Action on Draft Resolution on Human Rights Situations that Require the Council’s Attention

In a resolution (A/HRC/10/L.27) on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, adopted by a vote of 26 in favour, six against, and 15 abstentions, the Council expresses serious concern at ongoing grave, widespread and systematic human rights violations in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea; commends the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea for the activities undertaken so far and his continued efforts in the conduct of the mandate, despite the limited access to information; decides to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur for a period of one year; urges the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to cooperate fully with the Special Rapporteur and to permit him unrestricted access to visit the country and to provide him with all necessary information to enable him to fulfil his mandate; urges the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to engage fully and positively with the universal periodic review process in December 2009, with a view to improving the human rights situation through effective engagement with the international community; also urges the Government to ensure full, rapid and unimpeded access of humanitarian assistance that is delivered on the basis of need, in accordance with humanitarian principles; encourages the United Nations, including its specialized agencies, regional intergovernmental organizations, mandate-holders, interested institutions and independent experts and non-governmental organizations to develop regular dialogue and cooperation with the Special Rapporteur in the fulfilment of his mandate; requests the Secretary-General to provide the Special Rapporteur with all assistance and adequate staffing necessary to carry out his mandate effectively and to ensure that this mechanism works with the support of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights; and invites the Special Rapporteur to submit regular reports on the implementation of his mandate to the Council and the General Assembly.


The result of the vote were as follows:

In favour (26):Argentina, Bahrain, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, France, Germany, Ghana, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mexico, Netherlands, Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Switzerland, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay, and Zambia.

Against (6):China, Cuba, Egypt, Indonesia, Nigeria, and Russian Federation.

Abstentions (15): Angola, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Brazil, Djibouti, Gabon, India, Malaysia, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Senegal, and South Africa.


PETRA ALI DOLAKOVA (Czech Republic), introducing the draft resolution on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, speaking on behalf of the European Union and Japan and other co-sponsors, said the human rights situation in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea remained a concern. The use of torture, the existing labour camps and the humanitarian situation in the country were of particular concern. The Government of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea needed to recognize the mandate of the Special Rapporteur, and in this regard the resolution aimed to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur for one year. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea was kept informed throughout the consultative process. Japan was thanked for its contribution to the discussion and it was hoped that this draft resolution would be adopted without a vote.

MITSUAKI MIZUNO (Japan), also introducing the resolution, said the Government of Japan was deeply concerned over the continuing reports that grave, widespread human rights violations continued in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. As for the abduction of foreign nationals, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea had not yet begun to investigate the situation, despite its commitments made last August. Japan had therefore decided to table this resolution, as it did last year. The Special Rapporteur mechanism was indispensable for cases of continuing and serious human rights violations to complement the Universal Periodic Review process. The recommendations in the report of the Special Rapporteur served as useful indicators or benchmarks for the upcoming Universal Periodic Review of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. The resolution was not to denounce the country, but to encourage it to enter into dialogue with the international community, including the human rights mechanisms of the United Nations. The resolution should be adopted by consensus.

CHOE MYONG NAM (Democratic People's Republic of Korea), speaking as a concerned country, said that it categorically and resolutely rejected the draft resolution submitted by the European Union and Japan. The draft resolution was pursuing ill-minded political purposes. It was politically motivated and it was ridiculous to try to deny and cause damage to the dignity of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea’s social system by tabling the draft resolution which was full of distortions and fabrication. The reckless behaviour of Japan was preposterous; Japan had committed unprecedented egregious crimes against humanity in the past and had never reflected on its wrongdoings. It was well known that the United States, Japan and European Union countries had long been engaged in all sorts of political plots against the Democratic People's Republic of Korea in the international arena. And human rights issues always remained one of their means. The sponsors of the draft resolution continued to behave as judges on the situation of developing countries, including in particular those countries that they disliked.

RESFEL PINO ALVAREZ (Cuba), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that this draft resolution sought to renew the selective and politically motivated mandate against the Democratic People's Republic of Korea which was born during the times of the former Human Rights Commission, and was now in the Human Rights Council. Cuba said it had pointed out in the past that politically motivated measures imposed on countries of the south had been clearly addressed in 2007 when the institutional package was adopted. The resolution weakened the principles of the Council, non-selectivity, impartiality, cooperation and constructive dialogue, among other things. The policy of isolation and diplomatic measures imposed on this country were contrary to the guiding principles of the Council and were categorically rejected by Cuba. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea like all countries should appear before the Universal Periodic Review and then the human rights situation in the country would be discussed as had been the case for all other countries. The people of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea were hard working and heroic people who were not able to live in peace, and for this among other reasons, Cuba would call for a vote, and vote against this draft resolution as it was a draft resolution that was confronting and imposing something on a country.

KE YOUSHING (China), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said China had always been opposed to proposing drafts on a particular State, as experience in the past had shown that this did not play a positive role on the human rights situation, but caused confrontation. The Human Rights Council should work on the basis of dialogue and cooperation to deal with the situation in certain States in a constructive manner. On the basis of these considerations, the Council should try to find appropriate situations for particular problems. China was against this draft resolution, and attached great importance to the stability and development of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. It wished to work with the international community, and had made positive efforts to enhance stability on the Korean peninsula. The international community should do its best to ensure that the peninsular was not nuclear, and should work in that regard.

WIWICK SETYAWATI FIRMAR (Malaysia), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that Malaysia had a long-standing position in not favouring resolutions that concerned one specific country. However, Malaysia recognized the many issues that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea had to address with a view to improve the overall human rights situation in the country. Malaysia hoped for the support of the international community in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea’s efforts to do so. In a vote, Malaysia would abstain.

DIAN TRIANSYAH DJANI (Indonesia) said that Indonesia had always been against country resolutions, as they did not contribute to ensuring effectiveness of human rights mandates. It was regrettable that a lack of trust compelled the Government of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to close itself to the Council and its mechanisms, and the Government should open up to the Council, so that they could establish an unbiased cooperative mechanism. There were important human rights issues at the core of this discussion, including that of abduction, and the resumption of the dialogue should take place urgently between the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and those countries whose nationals had been abducted. The country should resume its cooperation with the Human Rights Council mechanism in good faith - however, this resolution stood in the way of that, and therefore Indonesia would vote against it.

MARIA NAZARETH FARANI AZEVEDO (Brazil), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that Brazil remained deeply concerned about the human rights situation in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Brazil commended the work carried out by the Special Rapporteur on the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Mr. Vitit Muntarbhorn, and regretted the obstacles he faced to duly comply with his mandate. Brazil urged the Government of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to fully engage in a more constructive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur as well as other special mechanisms of the Human Rights Council and the United Nations as a whole. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea must implement the recommendations stemming from those mechanisms through a genuine dialogue with the Council, the Office of the High Commissioner and the international community. Brazil recalled, on this matter, the human rights voluntary goals recently approved by this Council. Brazil firmly believed that they could provide a useful framework to the task of identifying areas to which international cooperation might be offered and received, in accordance with national priorities.

Action on Draft Resolutions on the Human Rights Situation in Palestine and Other Arab Territories

In a resolution (A/HRC/10/L.4) on human rights in the occupied Syrian Golan, adopted by a vote of 33 in favour, one against, and 13 abstentions, the Council, deeply concerned at the suffering of the Syrian citizens in the occupied Syrian Golan due to the systematic and continuous violation of their fundamental and human rights by Israel since the Israeli military occupation of 1967, calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to comply with the relevant resolutions of the General Assembly, the Security Council and the Human Rights Council; 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 and from all other practices that obstruct the enjoyment of their fundamental rights and their civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights; 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 (ICRC), and to rescind its decision to prohibit these visits, as it is in flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; also calls upon Israel to release immediately the Syrian detainees in Israeli prisons, some of whom have been detained for more than 23 years, and calls on Israel to treat them in conformity with international humanitarian law; further calls upon Israel to allow delegates of the ICRC to visit Syrian prisoners of conscience and detainees in Israeli prisons accompanied by specialized physicians to assess the state of their physical and mental health and to protect their lives; determines that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken or to be taken by Israel, the occupying Power, that seek to alter the character and legal status of the occupied Syrian Golan are null and void, constitute a flagrant violation of international law, and have no legal effect; again calls upon Member States of the United Nations not to recognize any of the above-mentioned legislative or administrative measures; and requests the Secretary-General to bring the present resolution to the attention of all Governments, the competent United Nations organs, specialized agencies, international and regional intergovernmental organizations and international humanitarian organizations, to disseminate it as widely as possible and to report on this matter to the Council at its thirteenth session.


The result of the vote were as follows:

In favour (33): Angola, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Chile, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Gabon, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mexico, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Uruguay, and Zambia.

Against (1): Canada.

Abstentions (13): Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cameroon, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Republic of Korea, Slovakia, Slovenia, Switzerland, Ukraine, and United Kingdom.


ZAMIR AKRAM (Pakistan), introducing the draft resolution on behalf of the Arab Group and the Organization of the Islamic Conference, said that they had held open-ended consultations. Israel had committed systematic human rights violations in the Golan Heights, including imposing Israeli citizenship on Syrian citizens and prohibition of visits of family members. The resolution focused on the dire humanitarian situation of the Syrian citizens under Israeli occupation. The resolution called on Israel to allow Syrians to visit their family members in the Golan Heights as well as to immediately release the Syrian prisoners in Israel, some of whom had been detained for more than 20 years.

AHARON LESHNO-YAAR (Israel), speaking as a concerned country, said the Syrian delegation was of the opinion that in the case of the Golan Heights, facts ceased to exist because they were ignored. Israel came into possession of the Golan Heights in 1967 in an act of self-defence after decades during which Syria used the area to repeatedly attack Israeli civilians. The Syrian Government purported that all individuals living in the Golan Heights were denied basic freedoms, yet nothing could be further from the truth. All inhabitants of the Heights, Israeli citizens or otherwise, were protected and enjoyed the full range of civil and political, economic, social and cultural rights. These individuals had the distinct advantage of living in democratic Israel which safeguarded their rights and freedoms. The resolution also reflected the commitment to politicise dialogue over reality. While the Syrian delegation could prefer politicised rhetoric to the reality on the ground, Israel was more concerned about the inhabitants of the Heights. The Syrian delegation should offer a more honest version of the facts in order to promote peace.

FAYSAL KHABBAZ HAMOUI (Syria), speaking as a concerned country, said one of the main manifestations of the suffering of the population of the Golan Heights was the occupation itself. In 1967 it was occupied by Israel, and since then dozens of resolutions had condemned this occupation and considered Israeli practices null and void. Nevertheless, Israel continued to persist in ignoring them and continued to deprive people in the Golan Heights of their rights. Israel had rejected its responsibility for the deteriorating human rights situation in the Golan and this constituted an outrageous disregard to the credibility of the Council and international law. The population of the Golan called on Israel to withdraw from its territories, and to return to the Madrid reference and Security Council resolution 242 which was adopted by 15 members of the Security Council. In addition, Israel was called on to refrain from agricultural activities in the Golan, and to release detainees who had been in Israeli prisons for more than 24 years, as well as to release Syrian prisoners of war. Syria called on the international community to vote in favor of the draft which would send a strong and clear message to the population of the Golan to show its devotion to human rights, and provide proof that the occupying force was not above the law.

KONRAD SCHARINGER, (Germany), speaking on behalf of the European Union in an explanation of the vote before the vote, regretted that the European Union could not support the resolution. The situation in the Golan was of great concern to the European Union, but the text had not changed from last year and the European Union’s concerns remained. The European Union regretted the limited willingness from the main co-sponsors to negotiate the draft. The European Union could only support a text that took a balanced approach to the occupied Syrian Golan. The European Union called for a vote and would then abstain.

TERRY CORMIER (Canada), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said Canada supported the concept that the peace process must be based on Security Council resolutions, but 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 solution in the region. For these reasons, Canada would vote against the resolution.

In a resolution (A/HRC/10/L.5) on Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory,
including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan, adopted by a vote of 46 in favour, one against, and no abstentions, as orally revised, the Council deplores the recent Israeli announcements of the construction of new housing units for Israeli settlers in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, as they undermine the peace process and the creation of a contiguous, sovereign and independent Palestinian State; expresses grave concern at, inter alia, the continuing Israeli settlement and related activities; the increasing number of newly built structures amounting in 2008 to 1,257; the implications for the final status negotiations of Israel’s announcement that it will retain the major settlement blocks in the Occupied Palestinian Territory; the expansion of Israeli settlements and the construction of new ones on the Occupied Palestinian Territory rendered inaccessible behind the wall, which create a fait accompli on the ground that could be tantamount to de facto annexation; the continued closures of and within the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including the repeated closures of the crossing points of the Occupied Gaza Strip; the continued construction, contrary to international law, of the wall inside the Occupied Palestinian Territory; and the latest Israeli plan to demolish more than 88 houses in Al-Bustan neighbourhood at Silwan which will be resulting in displacing more than 1,500 Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem. The Council urges Israel, the occupying Power, to reverse the settlement policy in the occupied territories as a first step towards their dismantlement, to stop immediately the expansion of the existing settlements, including “natural growth” and related activities; urges the full implementation of the Access and Movement Agreement of 15 November 2005, particularly the urgent reopening of the Rafah and Karni crossings; calls upon Israel to take and implement serious measures, including confiscation of arms and enforcement of criminal sanctions, with the aim of preventing acts of violence by Israeli settlers; and urges the parties to give renewed impetus to the peace process in line with the Annapolis Peace Conference and the Paris International Donors’ Conference for the Palestinian State and to implement fully the road map endorsed by the Security Council in its resolution 1515 (2003).


The result of the vote were as follows:

In favour (46): Angola, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chile, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, France, Gabon, Germany, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mexico, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Switzerland, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay and Zambia.

Against (1): Canada.

Abstentions (0):


MARGHOOB SALEEM BUTT (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization for the Islamic Conference and the Arab Group, introducing the draft resolution on Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem and in the occupied Syrian Golan, said in violation of international humanitarian and human rights law Israel was building and expanding settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The resolution sought to establish the legal framework based on the Charter, the Fourth Geneva Convention, the Security Council, the General Assembly, the Human Rights Council and the International Advisory Court of Justice, among others. The establishment of further settlements and the expansion of existing ones was contrary to international law. The draft resolution expressed grave concern at the settlement activities that were a violation of international law, in the West Bank and the expansion of Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem. There was also concern over the repeated closures of Occupied Palestinian Territories, and the plan to demolish houses in East Jerusalem which would displace 1,500 Palestinians. The draft also encouraged Israel to accept the recommendations made by the High Commissioner for Human Rights on settlements, and the International Criminal Court on the wall. It was hoped that the draft resolution would be accepted with consensus.

KONRAD SCHARINGER (Germany), speaking on behalf of the European Union members of the Council, in a general comment, said that Israeli settlements, for example in east Jerusalem, were illegal under international law. Settlements were an obstacle to peace. Israel should freeze all settlement action and dismantle outposts erected since March 2001. The European Union would vote in favour of the resolution, as had been agreed by the European Union as a whole

FAYSAL KHABBAZ HAMOUI (Syria), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said the introduction of the resolution came in a particular context, during escalated activities, which was very dangerous in the colonised territories including Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. These activities were undertaken after Israel's 1967 aggression, since which Israel had stolen Palestinian territory, bringing more and more foreigners from the four corners of the world to settle there. They were seeking excuses such as necessary expansion to justify the theft of Arab lands. Colonisation activities continued even during peace negotiations, and were attempts to impose a fait accompli on the territories and to modify the demographic architecture of the territories, which was a violation of international humanitarian and human rights law, as well as of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Council should grapple with this very dangerous policy so that there was opportunity for fair and comprehensive peace in the region, and rights were brought back to those living without them.


TERRY CORMIER (Canada), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that maintenance and expansion of settlements on territories confiscated by Israel since 1967 was a violation of international law. Canada was concerned about the draft resolution as it was not balanced and did not refer to the Palestinian obligation, which did not contribute to a peaceful and fair solution to the conflict. For those reasons Canada called for a vote and would vote against the draft resolution.

In a resolution (A/HRC/10/L.6) on human rights violations emanating from the Israeli military attacks and operations in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, adopted by a vote of 35 in favour, four against, and eight abstentions, as orally amended, the Council demands that the occupying Power, Israel, end its occupation of the Palestinian land occupied since 1967, and to respect its commitments within the peace process towards the establishment of the independent sovereign Palestinian State, with East Jerusalem as its capital, living in peace and security with all its neighbours; strongly condemns the Israeli military attacks and operations in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, particularly the recent ones in the occupied Gaza Strip, which have resulted in the killing and injury of thousands of Palestinians civilians, including a large number of women and children, and also condemns the firing of crude rockets on Israeli civilians; demands that Israel stop the targeting of civilians and the systematic destruction of the cultural heritage of the Palestinian people, in addition to the destruction of public and private properties, and the targeting of United Nations Facilities, as laid down in the Fourth Geneva Convention; demands further that Israel cease immediately all current excavations beneath and around the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound and refrain from any act that may endanger the structure or change the nature of the holy sites both Islamic and Christian in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, particularly in and around Jerusalem; calls for immediate protection of all civilians including an international protection of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory; also calls for the immediate cessation of all Israeli military attacks and operations throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory and the firing of crude rockets by Palestinian combatants against southern Israel; demands that Israel immediately stop its illegal decision to demolish a large number of Palestinian houses in the East Jerusalem neighbourhood of al-Bustan in the Selwan area, near the Al-Aqsa Mosque, which will be resulting in the displacement of more than 1,500 Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem; demands that Israel release Palestinian prisoners and detainees; and calls upon Israel to lift checkpoints and to open all crossing points and borders in accordance with international agreements.


The result of the vote were as follows:

In favour (35): Angola, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Chile, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Gabon, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mexico, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Switzerland, Uruguay, and Zambia.

Against (4): Canada, Germany, Italy, and Netherlands.

Abstentions (8): Cameroon, France, Japan, Republic of Korea, Slovakia, Slovenia, Ukraine, and United Kingdom.


MARGHOOB SALEEM BUTT (Pakistan), introducing the draft resolution, said that the resolution condemned the Israeli violations of human rights of the occupied Palestinian people. The resolution stated the inadmissibility of acquisition of land by use of force. It stated the applicability of human rights law on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, including East Jerusalem. Israel had committed severe violations of international law and the human rights of Palestinian people. The resolution condemned the Israeli military attacks and operations in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and demanded that Israel stopped targeting civilians and the destruction of cultural heritage seized as well as all excavation around the Al-Aqsa Mosque. The resolution called for immediate protection of all civilians in compliance with international law. The resolution urged all parties concerned to refrain from violations against civilians.

BOUDEWIJN J. VAN EENENNAAM (Netherlands), speaking also on behalf of Italy in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said there were serious concerns for the severe humanitarian situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, but the Netherlands and Italy were not in a position to support the text, as it contained a number of unacceptable phrases and concepts. A number of paragraphs had been added since last year. It was unbalanced as it addressed the situation on the ground but it did not present a balanced perspective on the responsibility for the conflict. The Netherlands and Italy therefore called for a recorded vote, and would vote against the resolution.

In a resolution (A/HRC/10/L.7) on the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, adopted without a vote, the Council reaffirms the inalienable, permanent and unqualified right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, including their right to live in freedom, justice and dignity and to establish their sovereign, independent, democratic and viable contiguous State; also reaffirms its support for the solution of two States living side by side in peace and security, Palestine and Israel; stresses the need for respect for and preservation of the territorial unity, contiguity and integrity of all of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem; and urges all Member States and relevant bodies of the United Nations system to support and assist the Palestinian people in the early realization of their right to self-determination.

ZAMIR AKRAM (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization for the Islamic Conference and the Arab Group, introducing the draft resolution on the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, said the realization of the right to self-determination guaranteed the observance and protection of individual human rights. The United Nations Charter, international law, and United Nations resolutions granted this to the Palestinian people. The Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, among others established the right to self-determination. Based on the accepted norm of the right to self-determination the preamble part of the resolution reaffirmed this right to the Palestinian people, and their inalienable and qualified right to live in freedom, justice and sovereignty, and to establish a contiguous State. The draft stressed for and the preservation of the territorial unity of the Occupied Palestinian Territories, including East Jerusalem and called on all relevant United Nations bodies to assist in the early realization of the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination. Due to its universality to all peoples in all parts of the world and in particular to the Palestinian people, it was hoped that the draft resolution would be adopted without a vote and therefore by consensus.

KONRAD SCHARINGER (Germany), speaking on behalf of the European Union in a general comment, said that the European Union supported the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination. The European Union urged all concerned parties to implement their roadmap obligations. The goal remained a peaceful and viable Palestinian State that would unite all Palestinians living side by side with Israel and its neighbours.

TERRY CORMIER (Canada), in a general comment, said that Canada recognised the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, and recognised the need for a Palestinian State, living side-by-side with Israel in peace, as included in the Road Map. Canada was nevertheless disappointed to see this resolution, as it did not contribute towards a peaceful settlement to the conflict, nor did it improve the situation on the ground, and Canada therefore disassociated itself from the consensus.

AHARON LESHNO-YAAR (Israel), speaking as a concerned country, said Israel recognized the aspirations of the Palestinian people to self-determination and had recognized this for many years. This could only be realized with a two-State solution - an Israeli homeland and a Palestinian homeland. Time and again Israel had stated that peace was in the interest of Israel. Palestinians had to accept that Israel was the homeland of the Israeli people and their right to live in peace and security. The use of Hamas of Gaza as a launching pad did nothing for the aspiration of the Palestinian people. The draft resolution affirmed the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people in a one-sided manner. Any peace process between Israel and Palestine meant that each had rights and responsibilities and obligations. Israel called on the co-sponsors of the resolution to sit down and discuss a resolution that was established with both sides - Palestine and Israel. Israel said it was time to turn away from the tide of political blames and turn to the tides of hope.

IBRAHIM KHRAISHI (Palestine), speaking as a concerned country, said that Palestine thanked all States that had voted in favour of previous resolutions, as well as States that had abstained and voted against. Palestine also thanked all States that had worked on resolutions on Palestine. The resolution would strengthen the struggle in Palestine. Palestine called on the occupying force to respect its obligations. Palestine did not want to transform this Council into a platform to attack anyone, but simply stressed that Israel should not have a monopoly in this Council by simply refusing to respect human rights. Israel had a monopoly by refusing to submit to the will of the international community. Occupation was reprehensible and was a flagrant violation of human rights. This should constitute a lesson for Israel, it should not feel that the power it had would solicit solidarity. Palestine was against targeting of innocents and civilians wherever they were, rejected provocation, colonization, imprisonment, walls and blockades. Palestine wanted to build an independent State. The Arab peace initiative, if implemented, would guarantee a life in peace for all partners in the region.

In a resolution (A/HRC/10/L.37) on follow-up to Council resolution S-9/1 on the grave violations of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, particularly due to the recent Israeli military attacks against the occupied Gaza Strip, adopted by a vote of 33 in favour, one against, and 13 abstentions, the Council, expressing with regret that resolution S-9/1 has not been fully implemented to date, requests the President of the Council to continue his tireless efforts to appoint the independent international fact-finding mission; calls upon the occupying Power, Israel, to abide by its obligations under international law, international humanitarian law and international human rights law; demands that Israel fully cooperate with all relevant special procedures mandate-holders in the discharge of their mandates; and also demands that Israel facilitate and provide unhindered access to the members of the independent international fact-finding mission.


The result of the vote were as follows:

In favour (33): Angola, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Chile, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Gabon, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mexico, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Uruguay, and Zambia.

Against (1): Canada.

Abstentions (13): Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cameroon, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Republic of Korea, Slovakia, Slovenia, Switzerland, Ukraine, and United Kingdom.


ZAMIR AKRAM (Pakistan), introducing resolution L.37, said Israel had been committing violations of the human rights of the Palestinian people since its occupation of the Palestinian Territories, including recently. The psychological trauma caused by these violations was incalculable. The Human Rights Council had decided to send an independent fact-finding mission to investigate all violations of international human rights and international humanitarian law, and the resolution requested the President to appoint this mission, and called upon Israel to allow the Mission to have unhindered access. All members of the Human Rights Council should support the resolution with consensus.

AHARON LESHNO-YAAR (Israel), speaking as a concerned country, said it could only watch the resolutions with amazement and wonder. The fulfillment of the Jewish people’s right to self-determination continued to be a hate campaign. NGOs and Member States time and time again used language that legitimized terrorism and shuttered the opportunity at peace in the Middle East. Israel said terrorist and radical Governments who rejected peace and ruled through the car bomb and human shields were not subjected to criticism. Israel extended its hand to Palestine, and called for a new way forward, and for the creation of new resolutions that spoke to the aspirations of the Palestinian people and Israeli people too. Israel’s human rights record was not perfect, but the system of justice upheld in Israel ensured that justice was corrected, 11 Special Rapporteurs were invited to visit the country and showed an Israeli agenda for discussion and fairness. The notion of justice was lost in the Council, where only Israel was condemned on a one sided and unfair manner, only Israel was subjected to double standards, and yet many delighted in the obsessive treatment of Israel.

KONRAD SCHARINGER (Germany), speaking on behalf of the European Union in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said the European Union had already expressed its utmost concern about the situation in the Gaza Strip. The resolution only addressed one side of the conflict. This also applied to the dispatching of a fact-finding mission. The European Union was not convinced that the fact-finding mission was not the right means in order to address violations of international humanitarian law. The fact that it had not been possible until today to appoint the members of such a mission, confirmed the European Union’s concerns. The European Union would abstain in a vote.


TERRY CORMIER (Canada), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said Canada remained deeply concerned about the recent hostilities between Israel and Hamas and the ensuing casualties. The resolution of the Special Session failed to establish responsibilities for the conflict. Canada would vote against the resolution.

DANTE MARTINELLI, (Switzerland), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said it was concerned as to the prevailing situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, especially with regard to the most recent military incursion. Switzerland supported the creation of an impartial investigation into the violations of international law occurring in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, including Gaza. Switzerland would abstain on the vote on this resolution. The declaration of the Chairperson to put in place an investigative mission to account for all allegations of violations was applauded, and Switzerland would participate in this, as it was important to shed light on allegations of violations by all parties, as this was the only way to prevent future violations.

OSAMU YAMANAKA (Japan), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said regarding the fact- finding mission and resolution L.37, Japan was of the expectation that the investigation would be conducted in a fair and equitable way, and that the report to be submitted to the Council would contribute to resolving the human rights situation. The draft resolution should be more balanced and for this reason Japan would abstain.

TERRY CORMIER (Canada), speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote on the resolution on human rights violations emanating from the Israeli military attacks and operations in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, particularly the recent ones in the occupied Gaza Strip, said that Canada regretted that the resolution did not take into consideration all concerned parties and focused only on Israeli action. Canada was concerned by the escalation of violations in Gaza. But this resolution did not represent the situation correctly.

OSAMU YAMANAKA, (Japan), speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said on resolution L.6 on human rights violation emanating from Israeli attacks and operations in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, it was essential that Human Rights Council resolutions contributed to solving the issue on which they were created. It was unfortunate that many of the proposed revisions to the text were not accepted, and therefore Japan had abstained from the resolution. Japan strongly condemned the firing of rockets against Israeli civilians and military attacks on Palestinian civilians. Japan would continue to lend its maximum support to the peace process and to the victims of human rights violations.


Action on Draft Resolution on Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Forms of Intolerance

In a resolution (A/HRC/10/L.2/Rev.1) on combating defamation of religions, adopted by a vote of 23 in favour, 11 against, and 13 abstentions, the Council strongly deplores all acts of psychological and physical violence and assaults, and incitement thereto, against persons on the basis of their religion or belief, and such acts directed against their businesses, properties, cultural centres and places of worship, as well as targeting of holy sites, religious symbols and venerated personalities of all religions; notes with deep concern the intensification of the overall campaign of defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred in general, including the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001; expresses deep concern in this respect that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism and regrets the laws or administrative measures specifically designed to control and monitor Muslim minorities; deplores the use of the print, audio-visual and electronic media, including the Internet, and any other means to incite acts of violence, xenophobia or related intolerance and discrimination against any religion, as well as the targeting of religious symbols and venerated persons; emphasizes that, as stipulated in international human rights law, the exercise of freedom of expression carries with it special duties and responsibilities and may therefore be subject to limitations only as provided for by law and are necessary for respect of the rights or reputations of others, protection of national security or of public order, public health or morals and general welfare; urges all States to apply and, where required, reinforce existing laws when xenophobic or intolerant acts, manifestations or expressions occur, in order to deny impunity for those who commit such acts; urges all States to provide, within their respective legal and constitutional systems, adequate protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred in general, and to take all possible measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and beliefs; calls for strengthened international efforts to foster a global dialogue for the promotion of a culture of tolerance and peace at all levels; requests the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism to report on all manifestations of defamation of religions, and in particular on the serious implications of Islamophobia, on the enjoyment of all rights by their followers, to the Council at its twelfth session; and requests the High Commissioner to report to the Council at its twelfth session on the implementation of the present resolution, including on the possible correlation between defamation of religions and the upsurge in incitement, intolerance and hatred in many parts of the world.


The result of the vote were as follows:

In favour (23): Angola, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Gabon, Indonesia, Jordan, Malaysia, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, and South Africa.

Against (11): Canada, Chile, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Slovakia, Slovenia, Switzerland, Ukraine, and United Kingdom.

Abstentions (13):Argentina, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Ghana, India, Japan, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mexico, Republic of Korea, Uruguay, and Zambia.


ZAMIR AKRAM (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization for the Islamic Conference introducing the draft resolution on combating defamation of religion, said the draft highlighted the continuing phenomenon of religious hatred and incitement of hatred of religious followers. The draft highlighted the importance of dialogue to prevent the incitement of religious hatred. Defamation of religion led to causes which led to incitement of hatred, which in turn affected the fundamental freedoms and rights of individuals, and it was important to deal with the causes, as well as the effects. This was a serious affront to human dignity and subjected people to hatred, discrimination and violence. The recent negative references to Islam and Muslims reflected the hatred of many in the world. The targeting of Islam and Muslins did not exclude other religions and individuals from a similar experience. The draft expressed concern at the negative stereotyping of religions and defamation of religions, and the use of electronic media to condemn and incite hate to religions and their followers. The draft resolution called on all States within their respective legal systems to provide protections counter to religious hatred or incitement of religious hatred. In addition, Member States were reminded of their obligations in this regard under the United Nations Global Anti Terrorist Strategy.

KONRAD SCHARINGER (Germany), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that the European Union firmly believed in the freedom of expression and freedom of belief. The European Union also thought that dialogue could help to overcome difference. However, it regretted that such dialogue did not take place in the Council. The European Union thought it was problematic to reconcile defamation with discrimination. Discrimination clearly fell within the scope of human rights. It had to be stressed that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights firmly forbade any form of incitement of religious hatred. A broader and firmly rights based text would be better in that context. Defamation of religion should not be addressed within a human rights approach. Specific religions should not protected. The European Union condemned instances of Islamophobia, Chrisitianophobia and other religious hatred and invited others to show their commitment to combat religious intolerance. The European Union stressed that religious hatred was worldwide and not limited to certain religions and beliefs. The European Union would vote against the text.

ARCANJO MARIA DO NASCIMENTO (Angola), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that Angola believed in the sanctity of freedom of expression, and that it should be fully protected by the State. However, it should not be used for acts of incitement to religious hatred which could lead to stigmatisation of communities with possible negative effects on the enjoyment of human rights by those communities. It was necessary to respect the right of anyone to enjoy their religion or belief without marginalization. Last year Angola had some problems with this resolution, and welcomed the approach taken this year to make a more balanced resolution, taking into account the need to protect all religions without exception. Consequently, Angola would vote in favour of the resolution.

TERRY CORMIER (Canada), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, expressed appreciation to Pakistan for the open consultation held, and in which Canada had engaged in and voiced concerns in a constructive manner, and in order to help bridge understanding in the Council. It was a matter of great concern all over the world. The harmful stereotyping of persons based on religion or belief should be denounced. Canada condemned all forms of religious hatred and called on all States to adhere to tolerance of all religions, cultures and ethnicities around the world. Canada said it was an individual who had rights and hence defamation of religion as an issue discussed under the Human Rights Council was beyond its scope and would jeopardize freedom of expression. In addition, the current resolution continued to focus on one religion above all others. For those reasons, among others, Canada would vote against the draft resolution.

CARLOS PORTALES (Chile), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that the only subjects to international law were human beings. The norms were geared to human beings, including the freedom of religion and the freedom to believe in a religion or not. The different religions were not subject to international law. There was a fundamental difference between criticism and attacks on individuals due to their adherence to a particular religion or beliefs. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights set forth that people would enjoy equal protection and prohibited incitement to religious hatred. Chile as a country with a variety of religious beliefs, would vote against the draft resolution.

GOPINATHAN ACHAMKULANGARE (India), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said India remained firmly opposed to attempts of negative stereotyping and defamation of any religion, but had reservations on the draft resolution, as it inappropriately sought to focus mainly on one religion. Not only did all religions face some of the problems mentioned in the resolution to varying degrees, but this issue was best viewed under the issues of freedom of religion or others. India would abstain on the resolution owing to the manner in which the issue was dealt with.

Action on Resolution on the Promotion and Protection of All Human Rights

In a resolution (A/HRC/10/L.26) on an Independent Expert in the field of cultural rights, adopted without a vote as orally amended, the Council decides to establish for a period of three years a new special procedure entitled Independent Expert in the field of cultural rights, with the following mandate: to identify best practices in the protection and promotion of cultural rights at the local, national, regional and international levels; to identify possible obstacles to the protection and promotion of cultural rights; and to work in close coordination with intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations, other special procedures of the Council, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, as well as with other relevant actors; requests the President of the Council to appoint a mandate-holder to serve as the independent expert on the promotion and protection of cultural rights at the earliest possible; calls upon all Governments to cooperate with and assist the independent expert in the discharge of his or her mandate; requests the High Commissioner for Human Rights to provide all the necessary human and financial resources for the effective fulfilment of the mandate; and requests the independent expert to present his or her first report to the Council in 2010 in accordance with its programme of work.

RESFEL PINO ALVAREZ (Cuba), introducing the draft resolution on the promotion and protection of cultural rights and respect for cultural diversity, said the draft established a new Special Procedure mechanism, specifically a new Independent Expert in the field of cultural rights. Cuba attached great importance to the promotion and protection of cultural rights and respect for cultural diversity. In this regard Cuba said it had been working on advancing cultural rights and cultural diversity since 2002 with the support of a very high number of countries. The establishment of an Independent Expert was a significant contribution to fill the void in the Human Rights Council in the area of cultural rights. Clearly the adoption of this resolution would contribute to respect of cultural diversity, and better balance of thematic issues covered by the Council. This was the result of wide spread consultations with a large number of stakeholders. Cuba said it appreciated the commitment and contribution of all involved in the drafting of the resolution.


KONRAD SCHARINGER, (Germany), speaking on behalf of the European Union, speaking in a general comment, said that the resolution before the Council aimed at establishing an Independent Expert on cultural rights. There was no compelling evidence to support adding a new mandate on a specific set of human rights, since overlapping and duplicity seemed at hand. The European Union attached great importance to cultural diversity and common heritage to be preserved. Human rights were universal and no one may invoke cultural diversity in order to infringe upon human rights. The European Union recognized that every effort would be made to absorb the costs within the existing budget. On the assumption that the Independent Expert would be guided by the various existing human rights legislation, the European Union could support this draft resolution.

For use of the information media; not an official record

HRC09053E