HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL HEARS PRESENTATION OF REPORTS ON INDEPENDENCE OF JUDGES AND LAWYERS, FREEDOM OF OPINION AND EXPRESSION, AND ON HEALTH

The Human Rights Council this afternoon heard the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, the Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, and the Special Rapporteur on the right to health present their reports. It also listened to a statement by the Minister of Disaster Management and Human Rights of Sri Lanka and concluded its interactive dialogue with the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants, and the Special Rapporteur on the right to education.

Mahinda Samarasinghe, Minister of Disaster Management and Human Rights of Sri Lanka, said Sri Lanka was going through a process of renewal and hope for the first time in decades. Resettlement of the displaced was a primary obligation. Sri Lanka was facing several challenges - apart from the provision of humanitarian relief services to the displaced in temporary accommodation facilities, there was de-mining, restoration of civil administration, infrastructure development, provision of a means of economic survival through livelihood development and the restoration of popular political institutions. Sri Lanka would continue to engage with members of the Council in a spirit of constructive dialogue and cooperation.

Leandro Despouy, the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, said after six years of intensive work, he intended to put forward some thinking on the very valuable experience, contributions received, and enormous challenges still remaining in the field of justice facing the Human Rights Council. His general report outlined certain activities carried out since the last report, giving details and many factors affecting the conduct of judges. Some progress had been made in the development of international justice, and there were still some problems regarding a lack of cooperation by some States. Some aspects could strengthen the independence of judges, while some could jeopardise it. Best practices for appointing judges strengthened their impartiality, as did security of tenure. Some factors jeopardised their independence, such as temporary appointments. Threats and intimidation also affected their independence as well as threatening State institutions. There should be sufficient funding for judicial authorities in order to lead to the proper carrying out of their functions.

Frank La Rue, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, said his report focused on limitations to the right to freedom of opinion and expression; the safety and protection of journalists and media professionals in conflict zones, which continued to be a serious concern; and implementing the right of access to information in situations of extreme poverty, which illustrated some important obstacles for the promotion of freedom and expression for all. In addition his report also focused on the difficult question of how to implement the right to freedom of expression in situations of extreme poverty. He tried to highlight how limitations in the provisions of economic, social and cultural rights had a profound effect on civil and political rights, particularly with regard to freedom of expression. Unfortunately, all over the world poverty remained a key obstacle that prevented that the principle of free speech be transformed into a concrete reality and a form of participation.

Anand Grover, Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, said his report analysed the effect of the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights and Free Trade Agreements on the right to health, especially access to medicines. He intended to focus on the importance of accountability, the need for monitoring the implementation of health related policies, the role of health indicators, and issues relating to maternal mortality. Improving access to medicines could save 10 million lives a year, 4 million in Africa and South East Asia. Patents created monopolies, limited competition and allowed patentees to establish high prices. Higher standards of patent protection, by reducing the number of patents granted easily, could facilitate competition to lower prices of medicines.

Guatemala, Russian Federation, Honduras and the Maldives spoke as concerned countries.

During the interactive dialogue on the independence of lawyers and judges, freedom of expression and the right to health, speakers raised issues on, among others, the report on freedom of expression which totally ignored mentioning the important amendment of the mandate to report on instances in which the abuse of the right of freedom of expression constituted an act of racial or religious discrimination and that the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers did not include certain factors that had an impact on the impartial functioning of the tribunals, such as a manipulative press inciting hatred. The right to freedom of opinion and expression, like any other freedom, was not absolute and had its limitations. Defamation of religions was a contemporary challenge that sought to undermine the democratic and multicultural fibre of many western societies. A speaker asked, with regard to the issue of intellectual property rights, if there had been any further developments in elaborating global guidelines for patenting, for example further expanding on the requirement for a tangible inventive step, so as to prevent the possible evergreening of existing patents.

Speaking in the interactive dialogue were Cuba, Egypt on behalf of the African Group, Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Czech Republic on behalf of the European Union.

At the beginning of the afternoon, the Council concluded its interactive dialogue with John Ruggie, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises; Jorge Bustamante, the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants; and Vernor Munoz, the Special Rapporteur on the right to education.

During the interactive dialogue on their reports, speakers welcomed the focus on children in the report of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants. Migration had particular ramifications on the well-being and future development of the child. Protecting the rights of children and the right to family unity must not be forgotten in drafting migration policies. The relationship between human rights and business was of paramount importance and ought to be addressed. There was a need to elaborate a legally-binding instrument on the human rights responsibilities of transnational corporations. The migration phenomenon had particular characteristics in the region of the Americas. The main challenges faced by migrant workers included an inflexible migrant registration system, routine exploitation at work by employers and lack of effective access to labour rights protection mechanisms.

Speaking in the interactive dialogue were Sri Lanka, Indonesia, European Commission, Senegal, Spain, France, Ghana and Palestine. Also speaking were the following national human rights organizations: the International Coordinating Committee of National Human Rights Institutions, the National Human Rights Commission of Malaysia and the National Human Rights Commission of Mexico took the floor. The following non-governmental organizations also took the floor: Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Arab Commission for Human Rights, in a joint statement with Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples - MRAP, Friends World Committee for Consultation (Quakers), International Federation of Human Rights Leagues, General Federation of Iraqi Women, Europe-Third World Centre, in a joint statement with Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples - MRAP, and Women's International League for Peace and Freedom - WILPF, Human Rights Advocates, North-South XXI, and International Commission of Jurists.

Thailand spoke in a right of reply.

The Council is scheduled to meet on Wednesday, 3 June in back-to-back meetings from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. It will conclude its interactive dialogue on the independence of judges and lawyers, freedom of expression, and the right to health, following which it will hold interactive dialogues with the Special Rapporteurs on summary executions and violence against women and hear an update by the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, followed by a general debate.


Statement by Minister of Disaster Management and Human Rights of Sri Lanka

MAHINDA SAMARASINGHE, Minister of Disaster Management and Human Rights of Sri Lanka, said Sri Lanka was going through a process of renewal and hope for the first time in decades. Sri Lanka had marched out of the tunnel into the bright light of a new era. As Sri Lanka looked forward to a new beginning as one united people in one undivided land, it faced many challenges. Resettlement of the displaced was a primary obligation - internally-displaced persons had undergone great suffering, being driven out before the conflict and being held as hostages by an increasingly desperate group of terrorists. Ultimately, the Government forces won the day, albeit at the cost of heavy casualties among the ranks of ground troops due to being constrained to the use of only light weaponry. The Government was successful in resolving the largest hostage situation the world had seen in recent times, liberating its people from the clutches of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), and it would now work hard to give them the future they deserved.

Sri Lanka was facing several challenges - apart from the provision of humanitarian relief services to the displaced in temporary accommodation facilities, there was de-mining, restoration of civil administration, infrastructure development, provision of a means of economic survival through livelihood development and the restoration of popular political institutions. The Government would continue with its efforts to weed out terrorists who had infiltrated the ranks of the displaced and the civilian population. At a juncture when Sri Lanka was justifiably proud of its achievements, it was disappointed that a Special Session of the Council was convened to discuss the human rights situation in the country. This was unnecessary. Efforts, if they were to be successful, must be complemented by the efforts of the friends of Sri Lanka, especially the United Nations and the humanitarian agencies.

Sri Lanka had already made gains in caring for those affected by the conflict, and was working towards incremental realisation and maintenance of international standards in the provision of humanitarian assistance. The Government was taking several initiatives to fast-track post-war peace building and development processes. In the field of human rights protection and promotion, the Government was working on the development of a national action plan for the promotion of human rights along the lines envisaged by the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action. The substantive content of the Plan was derived from Sri Lanka's engagement with the Human Rights Council last May, when it participated in the Universal Periodic Review, and also on its interactions with special procedures and mechanisms of the Human Rights Council. Sri Lanka would continue to engage with members of the Council in a spirit of constructive dialogue and cooperation.

Interactive Dialogue with Special Mechanisms on Human Rights and Transnational Corporations, Migrants and Education

GUSTI AGUNG WESAKA PUJA (Indonesia) said that Indonesia was of the view that migration had particular ramifications on the well-being and future development of the child. There was a risk that various forms of exploitation and trafficking might adversely affect the well-being and future development of the child, especially of the unaccompanied child. Indonesia would thus concur with the Special Rapporteur’s recommendations that best practices should be shared and bilateral and multilateral strategies needed to be developed in order to protect the interest and rights of migrant children. There were various international instruments that could be applied for the protection of the rights of children, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child and Human Rights Council Resolution 9/5. Indonesia asked the Special Rapporteur how child migrant policies could be mainstreamed and the child-rights approach could be used to better protect women and girls? As to the report on the right to education, Indonesia asked whether the Special Rapporteur did not consider that it would be difficult for countries to enforce educational standards in prisons given the complexities of managing prison systems and the expenditures needed to fund such educational strategies? Did the Special Rapporteur agree that it should be the right of national legislature and public opinion to determine what educational norms should be applicable as regards to education in prison?

JOELLE HIVONNET, of the European Commission, said the European Commission was closely following the work of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises and welcomed the seriousness and commitment with which Mr. Ruggie undertook this mandate. The Commission was exploring ways to help the implementation of the framework proposed by Mr. Ruggie at the regional European Union level. In this regard, two new studies were recently mandated by the Commission on the legal framework for human rights and the environment applicable to European Union companies acting abroad, and on a further study to look at concrete examples of European companies supply chain practices. The Commission asked how could the specific “protect, respect and remedy” policy framework defined in Mr. Ruggie’s report be made operational in the work of political regional integration organizations. And which activities at the regional level did he intend to undertake in the implementation of his mandate in the coming months?

BABACAR CARLOS MBAYE (Senegal) said with regards to the human rights of migrants, the report of the Special Rapporteur was a new confirmation of the importance of respecting the human rights and fundamental freedoms of migrants, whatever their status. The migration of children, which was the main focus of the report, was a phenomenon whose size was difficult to measure, largely due to the lack of reliable data. This made it difficult to draw up an appropriate migratory policy with regards to the realities on the ground, and thus there should be a policy to help countries to put in place an efficient data-gathering system to follow up migratory fluxes. The protection of child rights during the migratory cycle was also of concern, and was maybe not adequately covered at the international level through the existing instruments on child rights. Senegal was ready to receive the visit of the Special Rapporteur and would cooperate fully with him.

PABLO GOMEZ DE OLEA BUSTINZA (Spain) said that for foreign unaccompanied children, it was in the best interest of the child that the child be returned to his or her family. Without doubt, this concept of family reunification must be understood in its broadest terms, also including the return to the country of origin, either in his family or in a facility in the spirit of the article 9/1 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. As experience with minors had shown, it was fundamental to count on the implication and support of the authorities of the country of origin, as diplomatic missions and consulates had to provide the most extensive protection and attention to their minor citizens if they were unaccompanied in another country, working together with the authorities in the respective country.

MARIE-ANNA LEBOVITS (France) thanked the three mandate holders for their reports, and in particular thanked the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for his report on human rights and transnational corporations. France fully shared Mr. Ruggie’s analysis that the economic crisis demonstrated a need to focus on social and economic rights. France was prepared to support him in the recommendations made in this regard. The Special Representative emphasized the need for transparency and of due diligence of businesses towards their subsidiaries which coincided with France’s policy in that context. A good deal had been done at the legislative level. Procedures for registering complaints and compensation procedures for persons whose rights had been violated were also approved by France. To ensure that existing provisions be better known was also welcomed. In all of his work, the Special Representative could count on France’s support; however, one single issue remained of concern, with respect to almost all the references made in his report, France said most if not all came from English speaking countries, there was only one French speaking country, and he asked Mr. Ruggie if he thought that perhaps his future work should focus on other places, such as Latin America and European countries?

MERCY YVONNE AMOAH (Ghana) said with regards to the report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, this sought to respond to the mandate, and Ghana shared the view that the relationship between human rights and business was of paramount importance and ought to be addressed. Ghana had noted the problems and short-comings of the legal paradigm regarding the duty to protect, including the unsettled issue of extraterritoriality, where businesses violated human rights outside the jurisdiction and control of a national system. This was a matter of interest for many developing countries, and practical systems should be established to fulfil the responsibilities of all, including businesses, to respect the rights of others. Both Governments and businesses should review and rethink their practices in order to find a solution. The Special Representative should react to the African Group's proposal on the need to elaborate a legally-binding instrument on the human rights responsibilities of transnational corporations.

IMAD ZUHAIRI (Palestine) said the report by the Special Rapporteur on the right to education drew attention to groups traditionally marginalized and discriminated against in education, including people in detention. Palestine expressed its regret that there was no mention of the Palestinian situation in the present report whereas the occupation and all what was called security measures threatened the most vulnerable in their access to their basic rights, especially the right to education. In most of Israeli prisons, such as Telmond prison or Ramle prison, Palestinian juvenile prisoners were denied the right to pursue their education by the prison authority, as opposed to Israeli juvenile criminal prisoners who were able to continue their education, in complete denial of the 1997 Israeli Court decision that allowed education for Palestinian juvenile detainees. Palestine asked the Special Rapporteur if he considered that the occupation should be given special attention. If so, why was this not reflected in the report, regarding the grave breaches of human rights law it caused?

MYRIAM MONTRAT, of the International Coordinating Committee of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, welcomed the report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights and transnational corporations. The report specifically referred to the role of National Human Rights Institutions with regard to effective remedies. The role of National Human Rights Institutions could be in fact observed in all three pillars of the “protect, respect and remedy framework”, and their role in human rights and business dispute resolution mechanisms was a developing one. Roles varied greatly depending on the statutory mandate and resources of National Human Rights Institutions, and the national context in which they operated. The International Coordinating Committee supported a more explicit integration of a gender perspective in the framework, and a strengthened consultation process with developing country institutions and stakeholders.

ABU SAMAH ASIAH, of National Human Rights Institution of Malaysia, said with regards to the visit of the Special Rapporteur on the right to education to Malaysia, the National Human Rights Institution of Malaysia had repeatedly urged the Government to withdraw its reservations to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and to ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The Institution was pleased that the Government was intensifying efforts to improve enrolment rates for education by making primary education compulsory, although the emphasis on academic performance and the continued collection of hidden fees were still prohibitive. Special attention should be paid to learning problems among the indigenous population and children with disabilities. The Institution had embarked on several educational programmes aimed at inculcating the human rights culture among teachers, lecturers, students, enforcement agencies and non-governmental organizations since 2000.

KATHARINA ROSE, of Mexican National Human Rights Commission, said that for the Mexican National Human Rights Commission, actions to protect human rights, especially those of migrant workers and their families, were of great importance, since the Commission recognized that migration procedures must guarantee and protect human rights of migrants. In this manner, and acknowledging that the migration phenomenon had particular characteristics in the region of the Americas, the Mexican National Human Rights Commission had signed a series of collaboration agreements with different National Human Rights Institutions of Central America aimed at protecting the human rights of migrants and their families. Migrants suffered countless abuses which took two forms: the first one had to do with the violations of human rights of foreign migrants who passed through Mexico to reach the United States or who decided to stay in that country; while the second one dealt with Mexicans who crossed over the border to the United States and returned to Mexico. The Mexican Commission reiterated its commitment to defend the fundamental principle of international coexistence.

PATRIZIA SCANELLA, of Amnesty International welcomed the focus on children in the report of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants. Protecting the rights of children and the right to family unity must not be forgotten in drafting migration policies. Amnesty International was concerned that irregular migrants were routinely held in detention in Mexico prior to deportation. Irregular migrants were particularly vulnerable to abuses while in transit by both officials and criminal gangs. Measures taken by the Government so far were insufficient. Mr. Bustamante was asked if he planned any follow-up to determine whether there had been any developments in the investigation or prosecution of the cases of abuse of migrants and threats against migrants’ defenders cited in his report on Mexico, including those where the involvement of State officials was alleged.

JULIE DE RIVERO, of Human Rights Watch, said there were an estimated two to four million migrant workers living in Thailand. The main challenges faced by these workers included an inflexible migrant registration system, routine exploitation at work by employers and lack of effective access to labour rights protection mechanisms. Of particular concern were the rights of migrants disabled as a result of workplace accidents. The Special Rapporteur should initiate urgent correspondence with the Government on cases of exploitation and systematic discrimination of migrant workers. The Special Rapporteur should also explain whether he was considering requesting a visit to the country.

ABDEL WAHAB HANI, of Arab Commission for Human Rights, in a joint statement with Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples - MRAP, drew the Council’s attention to the situation of irregular foreigners, namely those in detention centres. Men, women, sometimes whole families that were fleeing poverty and tyranny were often detained in detention centres in circumstance that flagrantly violated their human rights. Detention centres were today outsourced to third countries. The Arab Commission for Human Rights had asked the Council to create a new agenda item concerning the rights of persons in detention centres. The Special Rapporteur should attach greater importance to the ratification of the International Convention on the Rights of Migrant Workers. He should also call for the ratification of the relevant UNESCO Convention concerning the elimination of discrimination in the field of education.

RACHEL BRETT, of Friends World Committee for Consultation (Quakers), welcomed the report on the right to education of persons in detention. It was impressive and encouraging to see the unusually high response rate of States to the Special Rapporteur’s questionnaire – 45 States from all regions – which demonstrated that the Special Rapporteur had indeed identified an issue of broad concern. The report referred to the number of prisoners who had learning difficulties or disabilities. Could the Special Rapporteur expand on this finding and, in particular, if there were indications of the reasons for this? For example, was there any indication that people in this group were more likely to end up in prison because the criminal justice system did not enable them to defend themselves adequately?

JULIE GROMELLON, of International Federation of Human Rights Leagues, of International Federation of Human Rights Leagues, said the International Federation welcomed the emphasis in the report of the Special Rapporteur on transnational corporations on the State duty to protect, and would like to insist on the need to recognise the extraterritorial dimension of the duty to protect of States vis-à-vis activities undertaken abroad by businesses incorporated in their jurisdiction. Such a duty formed part of States' obligations under international law, notably their obligations to international assistance and cooperation. There was a need to raise awareness among developing country negotiators on the risks such agreements could generate on their ability to discharge their human rights obligations. Corporations had the responsibility to respect all human rights at all times.

ENTESAR ARIBI, of General Federation of Iraqi Women, asked whether the Special Rapporteur on the right to education was familiar with the situation in Iraq and whether Iraqi prisoners could use that right. The persons that were imprisoned for many years during the last wars in Iraq did not get any education at all. Many children were not able to go to school because they were in prisons that gave them no possibility to do so. This happened after the invasion. The invasion had interfered in all areas of life and had led to the destruction of the education system which used to be one of the best as the United Nations had stated. It was necessary for the Human Rights Council to study the human rights system in Iraq and a Special Rapporteur had to be appointed.

MALIK OZDEN, of Europe-Third World Centre, in a joint statement with Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples - MRAP, and Women's International League for Peace and Freedom - WILPF, said that the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights and transnational corporations was right in saying that the existing means and certain measures taken by Governments were insufficient or far from meeting the challenges posed today by this problem. Furthermore, noted in the report was that States had the obligation to protect any encroachment on its people’s rights, including from business. However, the report lacked emphasis on binding norms and follow-up mechanisms. It was more urgent than ever before to adopt binding norms to transnational corporations with follow-up mechanisms as was recommended six years before.

AMOL MEHRA, of Human Rights Advocates, said there were critical deficiencies within the Special Representative's Framework that left human rights subject to abuse. Responsibilities referred solely to moral obligations rather than binding law, and thus articulated no legal obligations upon corporations outside of a call for due diligence. It also failed to consider situations where States could not or would not enact domestic regulation protecting human rights. Regulating legal obligations to States alone provided for complex regulatory systems, where corporate operations were subject to differing legal standards. These aforementioned deficiencies severely undermined the Framework's utility - for human rights to be protected and for victims to effectively seek redress, corporations must be seen to owe more than respect for human rights, but must be obligated to ensure their protection through consistent and clear legal standards.

LILY AUROVILLIAN, of North South XXI, said that while North South XXI welcomed the attention paid by the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights and transnational corporations to the UN Global Compact, it was concerned that his instrument was not legally binding. Moreover, this instrument had been ineffective in ensuring that States regulated the activities of commercial bodies in a manner that ensued respect for international human rights law. North South XXI urged the Special Representative to cooperate with all States to ensure that they understood and implemented their legal obligation to control the activities of transnational corporations when they infringed upon basic human rights. It also urged the Special Representative to call on States to contemplate a legally binding instrument establishing States duties to ensure human rights in situations where transnational corporations were involved in their countries.

LUKAS MACHON, of the International Commission of Jurists, said between 6 and 10 of May 2009 the Italian authorities intercepted in international waters some 500 migrants, who were trying to reach Italy in small boats, and escorted them back to Libya. Of concern was that these operations took place without taking due account of Italy’s obligations in relation to potential asylum-seekers or others who may not be transferred to Libya for reasons of non-refoulement. The Geneva Convention relating to the status of refugees, to which Italy was a party, prohibited the expulsion or return of a refugee or asylum-seeker “in any manner whatsoever” without reference to his or her entrance onto the territory of the State. What was the Special Rapporteur’s view of the situation of forced return by Italy of boats carrying migrants and potential asylum seekers, from international waters and his views on Italy’s obligations in this regard?


Concluding Remarks by Special Mechanisms on Human Rights and Transnational Corporations, Migrants and Education

JOHN RUGGIE, Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, said he wished to reinforce that it was exceedingly important not to shift the protection of human rights abuses away from States. Whatever responsibilities corporations had were independent responsibilities, and not in competition with those of States. The framework that had been presented on "protect, respect, and remedy" was meant to engage dynamically. On non-judicial remedies: these were not a substitute for judicial remedy, they were a separate tool, and had their own separate utility. The non-judicial part was preventive, not a substitute. Non-judicial remedies were a useful instrument in any context, even when regulatory legal institutions were well developed. There were examples of non-judicial grievance mechanisms, but these were mixed - there were none at the corporate level.

On responsible contracting and investment agreements, the investment agreement issue was an example of how States sometimes unwittingly tied their own hands and constrained themselves from implementing their human rights obligations or implementing programmes without fear of being taken to international arbitration. There was a great need to add greater precision in the drafting of these agreements, in order to provide investor protection at the same time as making sure that the States' bona fide objectives on matters including human rights were not unduly constrained. Work was being done to elaborate a model agreement in this regard. Guidance on appropriate ways for companies to behave in conflict areas was also being elaborated.

The mandate had been represented at a range of international events and processes, and the contributions of all States towards pushing the mandate forward were appreciated. With regards to a legal instrument, the Representative's focus had been mainly on content to this date. The Council would be the body to decide on whether there should be a legal process, but this was not the job of the Representative.

JORGE BUSTAMANTE, Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants, in his concluding remarks, said that the international community was facing serious times of increasing vulnerability of migrants. They were reaching the worst time for the defense and protection of the human rights of migrants. This was therefore the best time to reflect on the lack of ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Migrant Workers, since the most important countries of destination had not done so. The international community would be facing a situation in which it would have to do everything all over again in terms of migrants and the economic crisis was indicating that the worst was yet to come.

VERNOR MUNOZ VILLALOBOS, Special Rapporteur on the right to education, in concluding remarks, said he was grateful for the remarks made by several non-governmental organizations. Education was not alien to the context of persons held in detention; it was existing penitentiary systems which were allergic to education which had a negative effect on education for those persons. The human rights agenda was far from bringing about education in penitentiaries. Legal provisions needed to be enacted to have this happen as well as specific public policies. Best practices were related to the level of initiative taken by prison authorities before a longstanding State policy was to come about. Combating the stigmatizing of prisoners once released from prisons was necessary. Very often prisons were small and the percentage of dangerous prisoners was also very small, it was necessary for one to persuade officials to bring education to prisons. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization was trying to do so.

No one but the prisoners themselves knew what they needed. The effectiveness of programmes would depend on how much input was made by the prisoners themselves. There were alternatives to imprisonment, the subject of imprisonment needed to be focused on and bring this issue of universities as well. With regard to Palestine, this subject was included in previous reports. Finally, on monitoring policies in prisons, the Rapporteur said this needed to involve all universal procedures, such as the Committee against Torture and national human rights entities. Mr. Munoz stressed that he was ready to assist any request for assistance in helping to monitor prison systems.

Documents on Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Freedom of Opinion and Expression and on the Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health

The Council has before it the report of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers (A/HRC/11/41 and Adds.1-3) which includes a description of the Special Rapporteur’s activities between May 2008 and March 2009, including country visits conducted during this period and an analysis of parameters necessary to effectively guarantee the independence of judges. The report further indicates the main recent developments in the area of international justice by looking at developments in the different cases before the International Criminal Court and recent judgments of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, as well as progress made by the Extraordinary Chambers in the Court of Cambodia. Furthermore, the report refers to the Special Tribunal for Lebanon and the institution of proceedings by Belgium before the International Court of Justice concerning the case of the former President of Chad, Hissène Habré. In conclusions and recommendations, the Special Rapporteur focuses on measures to be taken by Member States to strengthen the independence of judges, in both its individual and institutional dimensions. The Special Rapporteur is also of the opinion that time has come to approve a comprehensive set of principles in order to ensure and further the independence of the judiciary.

A first addendum gives an account of communications transmitted by the Special Rapporteur between 16 March 2008 and 15 March 2009, as well as replies received from Governments between 1 May 2008 and 10 May 2009, and observations of the Special Rapporteur, where appropriate.

Addendum two is the report of the Special Rapporteur’s mission to the Russian Federation from 19 to 29 May 2008. In it he notes that important reforms have been implemented in the Russian Federation since 1993, particularly the adoption of new legislation governing judicial proceedings and the significant improvement of working conditions of the judiciary. These steps prove the willingness to introduce a court system where the judge wields the guiding role. The Special Rapporteur also demonstrates that important concerns remain about the practical implementation of equal access to the courts and the fact that a large number of judicial decisions are not implemented. He also points to the insufficient level of transparency in the selection process of judges and the implementation of disciplinary measures. Political and other interference has regrettably damaged the image of the justice system in the eyes of the population. However, the recent reform aimed at separating the functions of investigation and prosecution has the potential to attribute a stronger guiding role to judges and to achieve a more effective and balanced system between the parties in judicial proceedings.

Addendum three, which contains findings from the Special Rapporteur’s country visit to Guatemala, is available in Spanish only.

The Council has before it the report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression (A/HRC/11/4 and Adds.1-3), which focuses on the new mandate holder’s main vision and priorities for the mandate. It reviews the terms of reference of the mandate and describes the working methods of the Special Rapporteur. The report also includes a brief account of the main activities undertaken by the Special Rapporteur since the beginning of his tenure in August 2008, including an analysis of communication trends in that period. The Special Rapporteur also makes preliminary reflections on the issue of limitations to the right to freedom of opinion and expression. He also focuses on the right of access to information in situations of extreme poverty, and the safety and protection of media professionals, including the protection of journalists working in conflict zones. In recommendations, the Special Rapporteur says that rights to information and freedom of expression should be encouraged at all levels and urges Governments to deregulate the communications and media environment to allow free and fair information to flow more effectively to civil society. He urges Governments and State institutions to provide support and an assurance that all acts of violence against journalists are fully investigated.

A first addendum contains the summary of communications sent by the previous Special Rapporteur from 1 January to 1 August 2008 and thereafter by the current Special Rapporteur until 31 December 2008, including replies received thereto from Governments by 15 February 2009.

A second addendum includes a report completed by the former Special Rapporteur, Ambeyi Ligabo, on a country visit he undertook to Honduras from 26 to 30 November 2007. The purpose of his visit was to collect information in order to assess the exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression in the country. In the report, the Special Rapporteur analyses the attacks and threats against journalists and other media professionals. He also refers to the problem of impunity that persists in cases of attacks and threats against journalists and other professionals. He further examines the problem resulting from the absence of a framework encouraging diversity in the media and the concentration of media ownership in the hands of a few. The Special Rapporteur discusses the offences against honour covered by the Criminal Code, and gives a number of examples of journalists and other media professionals who have been prosecuted for such offences.

The third addendum includes a report outlining the findings of the Special Rapporteur following an official country visit to the Republic of the Maldives from 1 to 5 March 2009. In the report the Special Rapporteur analyses the situation of freedom of expression in the Maldives and the recent reforms in the country along with some of the challenges faced by the new Government in achieving democratic reform. In recommendations the Special Rapporteur commends the Government’s decision to develop private media and encourages it to maintain plurality and diversity to guarantee freedom of expression.

The Council has before it the report of the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health (A/HRC/11/12 and Adds.1-2) which briefly reflects on the activities of and issues of particular interest to the Special Rapporteur which took up his duties on 1 August 2008. The first chapter of the report explains the relation between the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, specifically in regard to access to medicines, and intellectual property rights. Chapter II is devoted to the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) and TRIPS flexibilities. The Special Rapporteur explores the way in which flexibilities have been used and incorporated into national patent laws of developing and least-developed countries. Chapter III analyses free trade agreements and the effect of TRIPS, plus requirements on access to medicines. In conclusion, the Special Rapporteur notes that the framework of the right to health makes it clear that medicines must be available, accessible, acceptable, and of good quality to reach ailing populations without discrimination throughout the world. As has been evident, TRIPS and Free Trade Agreements have had an adverse impact on prices and availability of medicines, making it difficult for countries to comply with their obligations to respect, protect, and fulfil the right to health.

Addendum one contains summaries of communications sent by the Special Rapporteur to States, responses received from States, observations of the Special Rapporteur, and follow-up communications and activities relating to earlier communications, from the period of 2 December 2007 to 15 March 2009 and replies received for the period of 1 February 2008 to 1 May 2009. A number of the communications contained in the report were sent and received by the former Special Rapporteur, Mr. Paul Hunt, prior to the end of his mandate on 31 July 2008.

Addendum two is a report on the Special Rapporteur’s visit in June 2008 to the headquarters of GlaxoSmithKline, one of the world’s leading research-based pharmaceutical companies, for substantive interviews with the company’s senior management. In previous reports the Special Rapporteur had examined States’ responsibilities in relation to access to medicines. However, enhancing access to medicines is a shared responsibility. The Millennium Development Goals recognize that pharmaceutical companies have a responsibility to improve access to medicines. In the present report, the Special Rapporteur outlines the responsibilities of pharmaceutical companies, including innovator, generic and biotechnology companies, with regard to the right to health in relation to access to medicines. Besides highlighting some good practices, the Special Rapporteur outlines some of the obstacles impeding the company’s attempts to improve access, such as failing health systems, and makes numerous recommendations addressed to GlaxoSmithKline, pharmaceutical companies in general, States and others. In conclusions, the Special Rapporteur notes that the status of innovator companies would be immeasurably enhanced if they did not see, and treat, patents as their “crown jewels”. Companies must grasp, and publicly recognize, their critically important social function and right-to-health responsibilities. They must demonstrably do everything possible, within a viable business model, to fulfil their social function and human rights responsibilities. Presently, this is not happening. If it were to happen, it would not only greatly enhance companies’ status but also pressurize States, generic manufacturers and others to provide the environment that companies need if they are to enter into arrangements, such as commercial voluntary licences, that enhance access to medicines for all.

Presentation of Reports on Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Freedom of Opinion and Expression and on the Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health

LEANDRO DESPOUY, Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, said after six years of intensive work, he intended to put forward some thinking on the very valuable experience, contributions received, and enormous challenges still remaining in the field of justice facing the Human Rights Council. His general report outlined certain activities carried out since the last report, gave details and many factors affecting the conduct of judges. Some progress had been made in the development of international justice, and there were still some problems regarding a lack of cooperation by some States, such as Sudan. Some aspects could strengthen the independence of judges, while some could jeopardise it. Best practices for appointing judges strengthened their impartiality, as did security of tenure. Some factors jeopardised their independence, such as temporary appointments. Threats and intimidation also affected their independence as well as threatening State institutions. There should be sufficient funding for judicial authorities in order to lead to the proper carrying out of their functions.

A mission had been carried out to the Russian Federation to examine the progress of judicial reform since 1993, with a substantial improvement for the conditions of work of the judiciary. However, there was a low level of transparency in the selection and discipline process of judges. The Soviet system had still not been left behind. It was no longer the Prosecutor that was responsible for investigation but a State Ministry, and it was regrettable that there was a certain amount of interference, tarnishing the image of the system. The authorities had been asked to carry out a rapid investigation of many grave human rights violations.

A second mission had been carried out to Guatemala in two stages - the second visit to investigate the changes made following recommendations. Guatemala was still a country with extremely high levels of violence and poverty, and all were aware that impunity was one of the most serious issues that the country had to face. With regards to criminal investigation, this was often hampered by officials who received pay-backs from organised crime.

Another disturbing situation was in Fiji, where the President had set aside the Constitution and declared a situation of emergency, all Courts had been dissolved and all decisions repealed. The international community should pay attention to the serious deterioration of the situation in Fiji following the 2006 coup d'état because of the absence of the rule of law and the general situation in the country.

After six years, the situation of judges was a high-risk situation generally across the world. The division of powers was the basis of democracy, and the independence of judges was thus a very important part of this. International solidarity should ensure that judges were supported - efforts should be made to clarify the criminal attack against the United Nations in Baghdad in 2004, and a Commission of Eminent Experts should be established in this regard. The tragic situation of those detained in Guantanamo showed the violations of the international conventions, and this detention centre should be closed immediately, with the incarcerated judged according to international precepts, with the establishment of responsibilities for those who carried out practices violating the international texts.

FRANCK LA RUE, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, said that he chose to focus on three key issues within his mandate: the question of limitations to the right to freedom of opinion and expression, which had generated a number of discussions in international fora recently; the safety and protection of journalists and media professionals in conflict zones, which continued to be a serious concern; and implementing the right of access to information in situations of extreme poverty, which illustrated some of the important obstacles for the promotion of freedom and expression for all. He was convinced that the Durban Review Conference marked the beginning of a new era in the international fight against racism and for the promotion of human rights in general. Mr. La Rue expressed his full support to the outcome document of the Durban Review Conference and called on all States, including those that did not attend the Conference, to implement its provisions. In particular, he highlighted some central provisions of the document which represented the basis for a new international consensus on freedom of expression: the right to freedom of opinion and expression constituted one of the essential foundations of a democratic, pluralistic society; any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constituted incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence should be prohibited by law; and States should resolve to fully and effectively prohibit advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred.

Mr. La Rue said that his report also focused on the difficult question of how to implement the right to freedom of expression in situations of extreme poverty. In particular, he tried to highlight how limitations in the provisions of economic, social and cultural rights had a profound effect on civil and political rights, particularly with regard to the freedom of expression. Unfortunately, all over the world poverty remained a key obstacle that prevented that the principle of free speech be transformed into a concrete reality and a form of participation. The poor and more vulnerable segments of the populations remained excluded from the media and from access to communication, thus facing ever higher barriers for the full exercise of their right to impart and also to receive information.

One of the key manifestations of the impact of poverty on freedom of expression was the growing digital divide, the gap between the information-rich and the information-poor. Whereas globalization had been providing ever increasing facilities for communications and the sharing of information, unfortunately those benefits had so far been restricted to a privileged minority. Poor people had been increasingly marginalized and unable to access such technologies, which further hindered their ability to participate in their national development programmes and to join the information society. This was not a problem restricted to the South. Vulnerable groups living in developed countries, such as migrants, minorities and indigenous peoples, had unfortunately been some of the key victims of the digital divide. Access to forms of communication was today a necessary element to implement the right to development.

On the mission of his predecessor to Honduras, he highlighted a number of positive steps taken by the Government in implementing the right to freedom of opinion and expression. At the same time, he made a number of concrete recommendations to the Government, including the need to combat impunity for perpetrators of crimes against journalists and media professionals; the need to transform defamation offences into civil actions; and the need for specific programmes of protection for journalists.

On his mission to the Maldives in March 2009, Mr. La Rue said he had highlighted the positive developments in the Maldives since the reform agenda was put in place in 2006 and commended the steps taken by the Government to implement a series of reforms to consolidate democracy in the country. He also put forward some recommendations, including the question of public consultations with the population. He made specific recommendations concerning the media reform package, public broadcasting, access to information, the de-criminalization of defamation offences, telecommunications, Internet, civil service and freedom of expression and religion.

ANAND GROVER, Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, said today he was presenting his first thematic report, which analysed the effect of the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights and Free Trade Agreements on the right to health, especially access to medicines, as well as Paul Hunt’s report on his mission to GlaxoSmithKline. He intended to ensure the continuity of the mandate and would focus on the importance of accountability, the need for monitoring the implementation of health related policies, the role of health indicators, and issues relating to maternal mortality. However, the right to health was vast, and there were a number of other challenges and issues that he hoped he would be able to address. He planned to apply lessons learned from HIV/AIDS field, where he spent the last 20 years, to the right to health more broadly. Experience had proven the importance of involving rights-holders themselves in decision-making and that meant ensuring that he involved them in his work as Special Rapporteur.

Nearly 2 billion people lacked access to essential medicines, and massive inequalities remained regarding access to health services and medicines around the world, which was partly due to high costs. Improving access to medicines could save 10 million lives a year, 4 million in Africa and South East Asia, stressed Mr. Grover. Patents created monopolies, limited competition and allowed patentees to establish high prices. While product patents conferred absolute monopolies, process patents led to relative monopolies. In this regard, when patents were used to limit competition, they could significantly impact on access to medicines. Higher standards of patent protection, by reducing the number of patents granted easily, could facilitate competition to lower prices of medicines. Of particular concern was that the supply of generic medicines was now in doubt as countries that were the generic producers had become the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights compliant and had to introduce product patents. It was recommended that, within the context of the right to health, developing countries and least developed countries should be enabled to use the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights flexibilities by introducing national laws that incorporated the flexibility to make full use of the transition periods; defined the criteria of patentability, among other things.

Another issue addressed in the report was the impact of a number of Free Trade Agreements, bilateral investment treaties, and other trade agreements on access to medicines, noted the Special Rapporteur. These agreements were usually negotiated with little transparency or participation from the public and those who were likely to be affected, and often established the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights-plus provisions, which undermined the safeguards and flexibilities that developing countries sought to preserve under the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights.

With regard to the report of his predecessor, Paul Hunt, on his mission to GlaxoSmithKline, Mr. Grover said the Special Rapporteur, Paul Hunt noted GlaxoSmithKline had taken positive steps – they reduced some prices for anti-retrovirals, and were devoting more attention to neglected diseases. The report aimed to emphasize the right to health responsibilities of pharmaceutical companies, particularly by drawing upon the analysis of policies ensured by GlaxoSmithKline. Further noted by the Special Rapporteur was that because access to medicines was a shared responsibility, whether or not a pharmaceutical company was able to fully discharge all its rights-to-health responsibilities would sometimes depend upon State donors and others fulfilling their human rights responsibilities.

Statements by Concerned Countries

CARLOS RAMIRO MARTINEZ ALVARADO (Guatemala), speaking as a concerned country, said the suggestions made by the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers were very helpful. Certain paragraphs in the first report and the report on follow-up made reference to short-comings in the process of selection and appointment to the judicial body which should be changed to prevent politicisation and the influence of external factors, since a more transparent process based on objective criteria guaranteeing independence and impartiality had been installed. This was one point. Another recent development was the signing of the national agreement for security by the three State authorities, including the Prosecutor for Human Rights. A Road Map would be submitted to put this agreement into effect. On the fight against impunity, significant progress had been made following the signing of agreements and the strengthening of the public prosecutor's office. Inter-institutional investigation teams had been set up, identifying national laws which hampered the administration of justice, enabling the relevant national institutions to be changed, as well as promoting other laws to enhance the functioning of the system.

DMITRY RUDKIN (Russian Federation), speaking as a concerned country, said that the visit of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges was indeed timely as the Russian system entered into a new era. Currently, a mechanism for the implementation of court decisions, including foreign court decisions, was being established. Regarding other mechanisms to combat corruption, Russia said that the Duma was considering legislative changes. Administrative justice was by far not the only means to combat corruption; the Russian President had presented a number of comprehensive measures in that regard. With regard to the conclusions pertaining to Chechnya, Russia said that an administrative court had been set up and a jury court would soon be established as well. All Government branches were looking forward to further the recommendations of the Special Rapporteur. Russia wanted to fully support the Special Rapporteur and to strengthen his mandate. In particular, Russia emphasized that the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges of lawyers had been working well together with the Government and this was an example of how to carry out a mandate of a Special Rapporteur.

J. DELMER URBIZO (Honduras), speaking as a concerned country on the report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of freedom of opinion and expression, said that the Special Rapporteur paid a visit to Honduras in 2007, which was a clear demonstration of the Government’s commitment to cooperate with the United Nations and all its mechanisms to promote human rights. In Honduras there was no legal provision which had arbitrary restrictions on the freedom of expression or opinion. The Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court in April 2005 and the Inter-American Human Rights Committee declared unconstitutional the heading of non-respect or contempt. There had been cases of threats or aggression against journalists, which were the result of the victims’ activities; however, according to information gathered from courts, no one had been convicted for such acts. With regard to information concerning bills for the decriminalization of crimes against honour, these cases could only be prosecuted through private actions. This was done through a special procedure, and also allowed for the parties concerned to reach agreement before procedures via a mediator. The Government was working arduously to collaborate in all fields and made special efforts to abide by the recommendations that came out of the Council and other United Nations mechanisms.

SHAZRA ABDUL SATTAR (Maldives), speaking as a concerned country, said the Government of the Maldives was committed to effectively implementing the recommendations of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression in a sustainable manner. The Maldives was taking huge strides towards protecting and promoting human rights in the country and strengthening national legal frameworks to enhance the role of the media and provide better safeguards to ensure media and press freedom. It was in line with this commitment that the new Constitution granted everyone the right to freedom of thought and the freedom to communicate opinions and expression. The current challenge for the Maldives was to change the mindset of the media and communication workers to ensure that they were aware of their rights and responsibilities in relation to the freedom of expression.

Interactive Dialogue

JUAN ANTONIO FERNANDEZ PALACIOS (Cuba) said that Cuba wished that the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers had included certain factors that had an impact on the impartial functioning of the tribunals, such as a manipulative press inciting hatred. This and other factors, including a vengeful attitude of the Government of the United States, occurred in the case of the five Cuban anti-terrorist fighters that were imprisoned in the United States and whose detention had been declared arbitrary by the Working Group on arbitrary detention. Cuba would like the Special Rapporteur to share his views on that case with the Council. Regarding freedom of expression, Cuba said that this was a complex and delicate issue. However, Cuba wanted to alert the Special Rapporteur that some of his interlocutors in certain regional mechanisms had doubtful reputations. In connection with extreme poverty, Cuba appreciated many conclusions of the Special Rapporteur and said that it would have been useful to elaborate on the basic premises to access to information in situations of extreme poverty; the guarantee of the right to education notoriously affected in such situations. In Cuba, there was a clear link between access to education and participation in political life and access to information.

AMR ROSHDY HASSAN (Egypt), speaking on behalf of the African Group, said it was with disappointment that the African Group received the first report of Mr. La Rue. The Group was surprised to see that the report totally ignored mentioning the important amendment of the mandate proposed by the African Group and supported by the Council, requesting the Special Rapporteur to report on instances in which the abuse of the right of freedom of expression constituted an act of racial or religious discrimination. Reference to this amendment appeared later, separate from the mandate and without any indication of the intention of the Special Rapporteur to fulfil this requirement. It was noteworthy, as well, that the report did not only ignore mentioning this important element while listing the mandate, it also failed to report on the cases of racial and religious incitement against migrants and their families under the pretext of freedom of expression. Furthermore, the report made unjustifiable emphasis on the relation between freedom of expression and extreme poverty. Such emphasis insinuated that abuses to freedom of expression were restricted to situations of extreme poverty. The African Group registered its opposition to this approach.

ZAMIR AKRAM (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, said the Organization of the Islamic Conference attached great importance to the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression. Like any other freedom, it was not absolute and had its limitations - the principle of threshold and limits was well established in the international human rights instruments, non-adherence to which led to unwanted friction, intolerance, and violence in all societies. The report under discussion squarely focused on the promotional aspect of the right, and had avoided reporting on the misuse and abuse of the freedom, instances of which were in abundance, and it was therefore not in conformity with the mandate and spirit of resolution 7/36. The Special Rapporteur had made the case that free speech was a requirement and not an impediment for tolerance - tolerance was a two-way street. Defamation of religions was a contemporary challenge that sought to undermine the democratic and multicultural fibre of many western societies. This was the time to squarely address unfounded fears of revisionism so as to avoid greater threats of the clash of civilisations and cultures. The Organization of the Islamic Conference therefore wished to convey its strong reservation to the report, in particular its rejection of paragraphs one to five and twenty-four, and advised the Special Rapporteur to henceforth strictly adhere to his mandate and the code of conduct.

VERONIKA STROMSIKOVA (Czech Republic), speaking on behalf of the European Union, expressed appreciation to all three Special Rapporteurs for their comprehensive reports. With regard to the issue of intellectual property rights, had there been any further developments in elaborating global guidelines for patenting, for example further expanding on the requirement for a tangible inventive step, so as to prevent the possible evergreening of existing patents. The European Union welcomed and followed with great interest the elaboration of parameters necessary to ensure the effective guarantees for the independence of judges. The European Union believe that the Council could make good use of such parameters as a check-list in the Universal Periodic Review, and the European Union would appreciate the Special Rapporteur’s concrete ideas on how to make the best possible use of this tool as a reference and channel the examination of these parameters in the work of the Council. The European Union was deeply concerned about the current situation in Burma/Myanmar and the political trial of Daw Ang Suu Kyi. Could the Special Rapporteur tell the European Union whether he planned to request a visit to Burma/Myanmar to assess the independence of judges and lawyers there?

Right of Reply

NETITHORN PRADITSARN (Thailand), speaking in a right of reply, said that with regard to the statement made by Human Rights Watch, the concerns had been noted, but at the same time the efforts taken by the Government of Thailand had not been reflected and should not be forgotten in this regard. In Thailand migrant workers were valued members of society, and as such the Government had put into place policies to regularize them. The measures taken by the Government entitled migrant workers to basic health insurance. Moreover, according to the social security laws, migrant workers were eligible for basic medical treatment from hospitals as well as access to education. The Labour Protection Act provided legal channels for migrants to bring complaints against their employers forward. Thailand took allegations of human rights abuses seriously. All allegations would be seriously and expediently brought forward in compliance with Thai law.


For use of the information media; not an official record

HRC09069E