HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL HOLDS ANNUAL FULL-DAY DISCUSSION ON WOMEN’S HUMAN RIGHTS

The Human Rights Council this morning held its annual full-day discussion on women’s human rights entitled equality before the law: concrete steps to further women’s equality. The discussion focused on non-discrimination in the law, with a view to identifying concrete steps to further women’s equality. The first part addressed institutional perspectives on equality before the law and the second part presented a wider perspective from academia and civil society.

Opening the discussion, Navi Pillay, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, said international human rights treaties prohibited discrimination on the basis of sex and included guarantees to ensure that women and men enjoyed their civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights on a basis of equality. Despite this perception, global and national realities indicated that there was a wide gulf between international legal obligations and their implementation. Not only did inequality in the legal, civil, economic, political and social arenas violate international obligations, but it also compounded discrimination against women. When race, religion, ethnicity, poverty, disability, social status, and other forms of discrimination were factored in, then the picture was one of even greater disparity. Moreover, inequality created a climate where violence against women and girls was considered acceptable.

In a concluding statement, the President of the Council, Ambassador Martin Ihoeghian Uhomoibhi of Nigeria, said the panel had stressed the importance the Human Rights Council attached to the human rights of women and the need of further advance on the fight against all forms of discrimination against women, and inequality before the law. While many commitments had been made to eliminate laws that discriminated against women, the international community recognized the need of strengthening the efforts to advance toward this goal. Equality before the law would require renewed commitment and effective actions. As part of its mandate, the Human rights Council had a key role to play in promoting and achieving gender equality. Many speakers had specifically called for the creation of a special mechanism to address legalized inequality of women. He was sure the Human Rights Council would be encouraged to take effective action to address this issue and to contribute to existing efforts to continue advancing in this important matter.

The panellists for the first part of the discussion included Rama Yade, Minister of State for Foreign Affairs and Human Rights of France; Leandro Despouy, Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers; Frank La Rue, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression; Michael O’Flaherty, Member of the Human Rights Committee; Pramila Patten, Member of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women; Philip Alston, Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions; and Yakin Erturk, Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences.

Ms. Yade said 60 years after the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the situation of women had not really improved. They had progressed, of course, but it was a path filled with obstacles, where steps backwards remained a possibility. Discrimination against women found its source in the continuance throughout the world of practices and prejudices from another time, in the persistence of both de facto and judicial discrimination. These inequalities were linked to the inferior social status which continued to be applied to women, and by the public debate that was tainted by this.

Mr. Despouy said sometimes inequality stemmed from the application of the law and not the text itself, for example in the area of property and ownership. As to administration of justice, women often had problems participating in it. Important issues were at stake for women, such as child custody among others, and therefore they needed access to the judiciary. Discrimination against women continued to be a major issue on the human rights agenda and the Human Rights Council could not turn a blind eye on it. Discrimination did not only take place in one area, women suffered discrimination everywhere.

Mr. La Rue said all human beings regardless of age, culture, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, among others, should have the right to develop their opinions and express them. It was very important to focus on freedom of expression from the point of view of women. Women had been silenced both in domestic legislation, international practice and customs in some countries around the world. It was necessary to create a safe space for freedom of expression and for the exchange of opinion, in all spheres of life: the family, society, domestic legislation and international instruments. Freedom of expression was a main instrument to halt violence against women and all forms of discrimination.

Mr. O’Flaherty said in the 2005-2008 period, the Human Rights Committee had reviewed the periodic reports of 50 States, and had raised issues of women's inequality before the law and related discrimination concerns with 47 of those States - from the North, the South, and all levels of development. It had become a dominant preoccupation of the Committee, having identified 133 specific concerns, including discriminatory laws such as legal guardianship of unmarried women by men, failure to address discriminatory customary law such as polygamy and female genital mutilation, discriminatory gaps in the law such as placing the burden of proof on the rape victim, discriminatory enforcement of law, such as the overlooking of honour crimes, and the inter-sectoriality of the problem such as the interplay of discrimination and poverty.

Ms. Patten said law remained the most formal expression of Government policy and the repeal of discriminatory laws was and remained a critical threshold step without which women had no legal recourse. A Government that allowed discriminatory laws to remain in force endorsed and promoted inequality. In many countries legal reform was taking place, and the number of States that had repealed or amended sex discriminatory laws had increased over the past decade. If thirty years after the adoption of Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, so many States were still pervasively retaining so many discriminatory laws, it just indicated that the pace of reform was far too slow and it was time to act because women could not wait.

Mr. Alston said from the experience of his mandate and as a legal academic there was no question that gender inequality was the single biggest challenge to the international human rights system at every level, which needed to be confronted. He highlighted the complexities that existed: the relationship between law and practice; the question of direct versus indirect responsibility of States; and the relevance of human rights law to non-State actors, were important issues when dealing with gender. Another issue that many grappled with was the relationship between human rights law and culture.

Ms. Erturk said although there had been a big step in recognising women's rights, and much had been accomplished, there was a great gap in the way that States were responding to their obligation to respect and protect women's rights. Most countries were taking measures, given the limitations within their own cultural context, to grapple with the issue. However, more needed to be done. In the third millennium, violations of any human rights could not be tolerated, and there was enough international experience and insight to learn from to bridge the gap between norms, values and implementation.

Speaking in the first part of the discussion were Chile for GRULAC, India, Nigeria, Paraguay for MERCOSUR, Argentina, Mexico, Colombia, Norway, Czech Republic for the European Union, Bahrain, Azerbaijan, Switzerland, Philippines for ASEAN, Slovenia, Ukraine, Luxembourg, Russian Federation, Lithuania, Iceland, Turkey, Yemen, Kazakhstan, Serbia, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Algeria, China, Indonesia, Germany, Bosnia and Herzegovina and South Africa. Also speaking were the Equality and Human Rights Commission of Great Britain and the National Human Rights Commission of Malaysia, national human rights institutions. Non-governmental organizations speaking were the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, Equality Now, Amnesty International and Women’s International Democratic Federation.

The panellists for the second part of the discussion were Maha Abu-Dayyeh Shamas, civil society representative; Ratna Kapur, Director of the Centre for Feminist Legal research – India; Marianne Mollmann, civil society representative; Yakin Erturk, Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences; Pramila Patten, Member of the committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women; and Michael O’Flaherty, Member of the Human Rights Committee.

Ms. Abu-Dayyeh Shamas highlighted that various women’s groups irrespective of their cultural and religious context had struggled to achieve gender equality well before the establishment of the United Nations. The United Nations came and confirmed the universal values of human rights available in all religions and cultures and the responsibility to provide a framework and mechanism to ensure that Member States were supported and held accountable. So it was the responsibility of the United Nations to hold States accountable to ensure the promotion and protection of gender equality. Admittedly the various gender related United Nations accountability measures that had evolved over the years did make Governments look at themselves closely in relation to their gender policies.

Ms. Kapur said equality in relation to women always seemed to be one of those rights that were constantly the site of contest, negotiation, and even trade-off. The proliferation of laws to counter sexual violence gave the impression that States were serious about women's rights and that something was being done. While responding to violence against women was important, focusing on sexual wrongs and criminal law did not and should not be equated with facilitating sexual rights or women's rights to equality. What was required was a more conscious strategy that focused on women's active and substantive equality rather than victimisation, protectionism, or more formal equality. Substantive equality demanded affirmative action measures in the workplace to dismantle structural discrimination and addressed the sexual division of labour that kept women at the lower end of the labour market.

Ms. Mollmann said that the experience and research of civil society organizations around the world pointed to three main ways in which the laws discriminated against women: the use of the letter of the law; the disparate impact of laws; and excluding women from remedies. With regard to the use of the letter of the law, in the criminal area it was not uncommon that many types of women were discriminated against with regard to sexual and domestic violence. Seemingly gender-neutral laws also often had a discriminatory effect. Those laws were particularly prominent in the employment and health areas. Finally, for many reasons women were unable to pursue justice and remedies for crimes committed against them, including fear of reprisal and a lack of funds. Until States provided economic alternatives for victims of violent crime, the promulgation of laws would have little effect.

Speaking in the second part of the panel discussion were the Organization of the Islamic Conference, Italy, Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie, Canada, United States, Egypt, Qatar, Netherlands, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Austria, Venezuela, Cuba, Brazil, Congo, European Commission, Thailand, Croatia, Tunisia, Iran, Viet Nam, Senegal, Nepal, Chile, and Morocco.

The following non-governmental organizations also took the floor: Center for Women’s Global Leadership, Worldwide Organization for Women, International Federation of Human Rights and Interfaith International.

At the beginning of the meeting, the Council heard concluding remarks from the Special Rapporteur on violence against women. Her reports were presented yesterday and an interactive dialogue was held on them. Ms. Erturk, speaking about what the Human Rights Council could do, said first, there was the issue of indicators and statistics and State responsibility for violence against women. One of the major problems she had faced was to come up with comparable and reliable statistical data, as even in the best of countries, this data required improvement, and in many it simply did not exist. Thus, there was an urgent need to launch a programme in this regard. This data was not only needed to make accurate assessments, but was also needed to evaluate measures used to combat violence against women. Adoption of some basic guidelines by the Council on the issue of indicators could truly assist Governments at the national level to further their work on developing a gender-sensitive and gender-competent database. Second, further work of the Council needed to be done on women's rights to focus more closely on the situation of specific women's groups, such as Dalit women, disabled women, elderly and adolescent women, and women who suffered from particular types of vulnerabilities and discrimination.

Mexico exercised its right of reply.

The Council today is holding back-to-back meetings from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. After concluding its annual day-long discussion on women’s human rights, the Council will hear an update from the High Commissioner for Human Rights, which will be followed by a general debate.

Opening Statements for First Part of the Panel

NAVI PILLAY, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, introducing the thematic panel discussion on women’s human rights, said such discussions were now a regular feature of the Human Rights Council’s agenda, together with an annual meeting on integrating a gender perspective in the Council’s work and in the activities of its mechanisms. The creation of these formal spaces for discussion and deliberation demonstrated that women’s rights were a priority of the Human Rights Council, a perspective that the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights shared and championed. In resolution 6/30 of 2007, the Council urged all States to implement their treaty obligations, including addressing the human rights of all women and girls, and to withdraw their reservations to these treaties. The Council also encouraged States to ratify or accede to all human rights treaties, including, as a matter of priority, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and its Optional Protocol. These steps were indispensable to achieve women’s equality in law, the goal that was the focus of this thematic discussion. Ms. Pillay was pleased to acknowledge that where the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women was concerned, 186 States were now party to this treaty, of which 97 were party to its Optional Protocol. States that had yet to accept the Convention should do so this year, which marked the thirteenth anniversary of its adoption by the General Assembly.

International human rights treaties prohibited discrimination on the basis of sex and included guarantees to ensure that women and men enjoyed their civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights on a basis of equality. Despite this perception, global and national realities indicated that there was a wide gulf between international legal obligations and their implementation, observed Ms. Pillay. In 2005, the Commission on the Status of Women conducted a review of the commitments undertaken by Governments at the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing ten years earlier. It concluded that “legislative and regulatory gaps, as well as lack of implementation and enforcement of legislation and regulations, perpetuated de jure as well as de facto inequality and discrimination”. Simply put, this meant that women did not enjoy human rights on the basis of equality with men. The Beijing plus 5 review established 2005 as a target date for the revocation of laws that discriminated against women, but this deadline had come and gone: that call remained unheeded. Many of these laws were still in force and continued to be applied to the detriment of women and girls. It was high time to repeal iniquitous legislation, stressed the High Commissioner.

Not only did inequality in the legal, civil, economic, political and social arenas violate international obligations, but it also compounded discrimination against women, said the High Commissioner. When race, religion, ethnicity, poverty, disability, social status, and other forms of discrimination were factored in, then the picture was one of even greater disparity. Moreover, inequality created a climate where violence against women and girls was considered acceptable, underscored Ms. Pillay. Inequality in the law existed in all regions of the world and in all legal traditions. In some countries, married women were forbidden from keeping their own names or passing their nationality on to their children. Their right to own land or inherit property may be limited, and their rights in marriage and divorce law were subjugated to the legal rights of their husbands. In other States, women did not have freedom of movement, and must be accompanied by male guardians. Their educational and employment prospects were heavily circumscribed, and they may be excluded from public office. Impairment to the enjoyment of women’s rights and equality often negatively affected their children too. Where mothers were precluded from transmitting their nationality to their children, they may be stateless. Inequality in respect of custody and guardianship of children may have meant that violent or irresponsible fathers retained total and unchallenged control over their children’s lives.

RAMA YADE, Secretary of State of Foreign Affairs and Human Rights of France, said political action was essential to fight against discrimination targeting women, whether the result of circumstance, habit, custom or the law. Sixty years after the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the situation of women had not really improved. They had progressed, of course, but it was a path filled with obstacles, where steps backwards remained a possibility. Although the Declaration held that "each can enjoy all rights and freedoms, with no distinction, in particular that of sex", reality was far from this. Inequality between men and women remained a universal phenomenon, as well as the violation of the fundamental rights of the latter. Discrimination against women found its source in the continuance throughout the world of practices and prejudices from another time, in the persistence of both de facto and judicial discrimination. These inequalities were linked to the inferior social status which continued to be applied to women, and by the public debate that was tainted by this.

Nevertheless, the international community had made strong commitments by adopting the Beijing Plan of Action: the need to guarantee non-discrimination and equality, before the law and in practice, had been inscribed as one of its strategic goals, and this commitment had been reiterated by the General Assembly, with a deadline of 2005. Almost five years later, the world was still far from achieving a victory over this form of discrimination. Even if the judicial status of women had greatly improved over previous years, bridging the gap between fact and law remained a challenge. Discrimination, when it was included in the law, culminated in the deprivation of women's most fundamental rights, and the justification by the law of this discrimination was unacceptable. Both law and the administration of justice were often tainted by stereotypes which impeded women from benefiting from the law on an equal footing.

A lot remained to be done to guarantee women non-discrimination in the world of employment, equal pay for equal work, and their presence in both elected posts and at the highest level of public authority and businesses. The international community must continue its commitment to this situation by examining closely provisions which included the violation of the most fundamental rights under the cover of legality. One of the main lessons of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was that the universality of rights took root in the proclamation and recognition of equality between men and women, and the international community had to give life to this principle through action. In this context, it was essential that the Council give capital importance to the concrete implementation of this principle. The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women should become universal. The Council should create a mandate on discrimination against women, completing and deepening the existing instruments and mandates, and this mandate should hold a continuous dialogue with States, following up recommendations and conclusions, sharing best practices, and bringing expertise to States.

LEANDRO DESPOUY, Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, reflected on issues that he had observed as Special Rapporteur, especially the equality of women and men before the law. The issue of equality took on many different facets. Sometimes it was the text of the law itself. Sometimes men were able to participate in legal proceeding, but women were not. They could not appear before court, not even as a witness. Another issue was crimes of honour: they were often seen as only women being adulterous. Sometimes inequality stemmed from the application of the law and not the text itself, for example in the area of property and ownership. As to administration of justice and how women could participate in it, Mr. Despouy said that women often had problems participating in it. He had seen countries where women were not in the judiciary, especially not in the higher positions, for example in the Maldives. Some countries were counting female administrative staff into their statistics to embellish them. Access to courts should also be guaranteed during the whole trial. Important issues were at stake for women, such as child custody and therefore they needed access to the judiciary.

Mr. Despouy had observed that often victims were made responsible for the crimes that had been committed, for example in cases of rape. As to rape as a weapon of war, Mr. Despouy said that during the war in Ex-Yugoslavia, the Serbian forces routinely raped and terrorized Muslim women. Rape was also used as a systemic weapon of war in the region of the Great Lakes and in Rwanda. There was also kidnapping to this end, women were displaced and their identities changed. Consequently, their inequality prevented them for denouncing the perpetrators. In Latin America, Mr. Despouy saw an exacerbated situation; women had disappeared because of prostitution gangs that had taken them away. This was a very preoccupying situation and the Council had to take a look at it. Discrimination against women continued to be a major issue on the human rights agenda and the Human Rights Council could not turn a blind eye on it. Discrimination did not only take place in one area, women suffered from discrimination everywhere.

FRANK LA RUE LEWY, Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression, thanked Member States who sponsored this full day panel discussion on women’s human rights, and the High Commissioner for Human Rights and her Office who made significant efforts to make this day possible. Traditionally freedom of opinion and expression had been seen as maintaining freedom for the press, which was a pillar, but also it was important to look at the various sectors of the world where people did not have access to information and who did not have their voices heard. All human beings regardless of age, culture, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, among others, should have the right to develop their opinions and express them. It was very important to focus on freedom of expression from the point of view of women. Women have been silenced both in domestic legislation, international practice and customs in some countries around the world. It was necessary to create a safe space for freedom of expression and for the exchange of opinion, in all spheres of life; the family, society, domestic legislation and international instruments.

Men and women had the right to express themselves, to be heard and have their views understood. Participatory mechanisms also needed to be created, so that women, starting from childhood could learn to express themselves without fear of consequences, stressed Mr. La Rue. To formulate an opinion was to have access to information. Women had a right to base their decisions on relevant and founded information. This was true in the sphere of the family and in economic and political life. Access to mechanisms that provided for communications was also necessary. It was very important for the people working in the media to have a gender balance, and only then was it possible to apply an appropriate approach, as well as in the sector of education. Girls should be able to go to school in full freedom and feel safe to express themselves from the earliest years of their life, which were the years in which they developed their confidence. Lastly, it was necessary to maintain freedom of expression, and to pay attention to what women said; this was vital for the whole human rights system, which took bearing on their ability to denounce sexual violence and political measures that affected them directly, among other things. The Special Rapporteur underscored that freedom of expression was a main instrument to halt violence against women and all forms of discrimination.

MICHAEL O'FLAHERTY, Member of the Human Rights Committee, said that he shared the dismay of all at the gap between the planned eradication of discrimination against women under law in 2005, and the current situation. How to achieve this goal should be further discussed. In the 2005-2008 period, the Human Rights Committee reviewed the periodic reports of 50 States, and had raised issues of women's inequality before the law and related discrimination concerns with 47 of those States - from the North, the South, and all levels of development. It had become a dominant preoccupation of the Committee, having identified 133 specific concerns, including discriminatory laws such as legal guardianship of unmarried women by men, failure to address discriminatory customary law such as polygamy and female genital mutilation, discriminatory gaps in the law such as placing the burden of proof on the rape victim, discriminatory enforcement of law, such as the overlooking of honour crimes, and the inter-sectoriality of the problem such as the interplay of discrimination and poverty.

How could the treaty bodies respond to these issues, Mr. O’Flaherty asked. The first issue was whether there was enough law - and there was indeed enough law, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which was replete with sturdy provisions to address inequality and discrimination. The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights had also recently issued a very important General Comment on discrimination, which raised the issue of whether the other treaty bodies needed to revisit their General Comments on the issue of discrimination against women. Which treaty body should do the job was also clear - this was a function of all the Committees, all with their distinct mandates and focus, but with the broad duty to monitor inequality before the law and discrimination. If the treaty bodies were to do their work more effectively, then they needed the help of States.

How could the work of the treaty bodies be supported through the Human Rights Council, asked Mr. O’Flaherty. This could be done by through reporting on these issues by States, not only at the Council but also through the Committees. There was also a need for disaggregated data, the lack of which hampered the work of the treaty bodies. There was a need for more engagement from non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and national human rights institutions. Finally, all, States, NGOs, and national human rights institutions needed to do a better job of disseminating concluding observations and publicising them, as well as implementing them.

PRAMILA PATTEN, Member of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, said that international human rights law had repeatedly affirmed the right to equality before the law without discrimination on the basis of sex. The impact of the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, which had been ratified by 186 States had been, without doubt, far-reaching, with ratification prompting significant legal reforms, with repeal of discriminatory laws taking place as a direct response to the recommendations of the Committee. However, the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women Committee had every reason to remain concerned about the persistence of discriminatory laws which, in effect, was creating a legal framework that was entirely incompatible with the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women and other human rights instruments. From the examination of States parties’ reports, it was apparent that discriminatory laws against women continued to exist in every corner of the globe and as we sat here, probably new discriminatory laws were being enacted in some Parliaments. There were many laws still in force that institutionalized second class status for women with regard to property rights, citizenship rights, employment rights, parental rights and marital rights.

De jure discrimination in whatever area, participation in political and public life, nationality and citizenship, education, employment, health, inheritance, property and marriage was incompatible with women’s empowerment. There were still countries around the world where under the law women, unlike men, could not drive, vote, work at night, inherit property, or give evidence in Court. But of course, the majority of the expressly discriminatory laws in force related to family life, including limiting a woman’s right to marry, divorce, and remarry and allowing for sex discriminatory marital practices such as wife obedience and polygamy. Laws explicitly mandating wife obedience still governed marital relations in many States.

Although the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women demanded far more from Governments than the achievement of formal equality and envisioned a much broader guarantee of substantive equality, the abolition of de jure discrimination was a first step toward and a precondition of this progressive vision – it demonstrated the political will necessary for the realization of the fundamental human rights to equality between women and men. Law remained the most formal expression of Government policy and the repeal of discriminatory laws was and remained a critical threshold step without which women had no legal recourse. A Government that allowed discriminatory laws to remain in force endorsed and promoted inequality. In many countries legal reform was taking place, and the number of States that had repealed or amended sex discriminatory laws had increased over the past decade. If 30 years after the adoption of Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, so many States were still pervasively retaining so many discriminatory laws, it just indicated that the pace of reform was far too slow and it was time to act because women could not wait.

PHILIP ALSTON, Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, said from the experience of his mandate and as a legal academic there was no question that gender inequality was the single biggest challenge to the international human rights system at every level, which needed to be confronted. Professor Alston highlighted the complexities that existed: the relationship between law and practice; the question of direct versus indirect responsibility of States; and the relevance of human rights law to non-State actors, were important issues when dealing with gender. Another issue that many grappled with was the relationship between human rights law and culture.

On the relationship between law and practice, the panel’s focus today was on equality and particularly in legislation. Having spent 12 years on a treaty body, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, he had listened to long lists of legislation which bore little if any affect in the countries being reviewed. It should not be accepted that these obligations should be viewed as the need to complete a check list. On direct and indirect responsibility of States, Mr. Alston said, when he first started his mandate he met a Permanent Representative in Geneva who told him that he hoped he would correct the opinion of his predecessor who addressed honour killings as part of this issue. What his predecessor did not realize was that in cases of honour killings the State bore no responsibility. As a result of that discussion, Professor Alston directed the first part of his report to explaining this very point; in cases where one woman, three women, ten women were killed, the State bore no responsibility, it was called murder. Only when hundreds of women were killed did the State take responsibility under its international obligations and as such was held to have failed to take necessary preventative action, to prosecute and to punish those responsible.

On the issue of culture, the question of witch craft was a perfect example of an extraordinary issue. Women were targeted overwhelmingly in this regard, and he estimated that thousands were killed every year, 95 per cent of them women, on the grounds that they were witches. One suggestion he heard someone make when addressing this issue was to outlaw witchcraft. However, in a number of countries peoples’ belief in supernatural powers was customary, and one could not simply jump in and say it was illegal to hold spiritual beliefs and traditions. Furthermore, one could not neglect the cultural necessities when dealing with human rights and in particular when dealing with issues of gender equality, observed Mr. Alston.

YAKIN ERTURK, Special Rapporteur on violence against women, said the Council was aware of her views on these issues which she had been writing in reports and advocating for the last six years. She was not going to go into much detail, and was happy to hear from other speakers that the issue of women's rights was in good hands, and that her mandate would not go astray once she had left it. It had been argued that legislation could restrain the heartless but not change hearts, and this was true. Legislation was only one, but a very important element in the fight to eliminate violence against women and violations of women's rights in general. Unlike many other forms of human rights violations, violations of women's rights were not necessarily about the cruel, heartless individuals who took it upon themselves to harm, but most violations were perpetrated by those who loved them - "for their own good". When listening to testimonies by perpetrators, they often said they killed the woman because she went astray, they loved her, and it was for her own good. Violation of women's rights was more ingrained than the cruelty of individuals - it was about the patriarchal system that privileged domination over women - a natural component of social order. It was this very ingrained quality that was being fought.

Although there had been a big step in recognising women's rights and this situation, and much had been accomplished, there was a great gap in the way that States were responding to their obligation to respect and protect women's rights. Most countries were taking measures, given the limitations within their own cultural context, to grapple with the issue. However, more needed to be done. In the third millennium, violations of any human rights could not be tolerated, and there was enough international experience and insight to learn from to bridge the gap between norms, values and implementation. In most countries, gender equality was a constitutional norm, but there was a gap in the understanding of stakeholders as to what this term meant and how it would be achieved. Laws initiated tended to be fragmented - there were many provisions in Labour Codes of many countries which, for example, undid the positive provisions in other parts of legislation. Women's rights were not partial and could not be dealt with through fragmented undertakings.

At the international level, there was also fragmentation, a dichotomy between civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights. There was a need for an integrated approach, and the international community needed to work to this end. So far, work had been done in a very liberal agenda, informal rights, increasing women's presence on decision-making bodies and so forth, and legislation was also informed through this liberal understanding. But there was a need to think further, past the liberal world, and to a post-liberal situation, to what were the elements of the new gender contract that went beyond the male yardstick which the international community was seeking to bring women to. These issues had not yet been fully addressed in many areas, although attempts were being made to determine elements of a new gender contract which could go beyond gender-mainstreaming, and transform the mainstream itself.

Discussion for First Part of the Panel

Among issues raised by delegations in the context of the discussion during this panel were the need to grapple with impunity when confronting violence against women, in particular the need to improve legal means for combating this. The situation of Dalit women in India was raised. The initiative of the Council in voting for a full day for this discussion showed the importance of the issue, speakers said. There were increased commitments and developments world-wide with regards to increasing gender-equality. The efforts made by the relevant bodies of the United Nations and other inter-Governmental and Governmental bodies over past decades should continue. Legislation should be examined in all countries en bloc and reviewed in order to increase comprehensive protection against violence against women as well as of their rights as a whole. It was important for decision-making bodies to pursue means and include these in how to preserve women's rights in the context of justice and legislation. Enormous efforts were being made to continue to discuss the issue in an open and democratic manner in some regions of the world, with the full involvement of all stakeholders including civil society. The gradual equality between men and women included enshrining and consolidating rights for women in a range of areas, and positive discrimination could play a role in this regard.

Despite legal equality, and the undoubted progress of women in all areas, there were still daily situations in which women were placed in a position of subordination, and these needed to be remedied. In practice, women still suffered from a range of problems with regards to accessing their rights, and therefore work needed to be done to change this, with an interdisciplinary approach. There should be rapid access to justice for women. Education needed to include measures to eliminate discrimination against women - the path ahead was still long, and without constant cooperation with international mechanisms on human rights, especially those which focused their work on gender equality, success would be a difficult goal to reach. The Council played a key role in eradicating discrimination against women, and thus it should continue to discuss the issue, and redouble its efforts to define equality before the law and make it a tangible reality. A stronger momentum for change needed to be created in order to accelerate progress. A new gender mechanism for the United Nations would allow it to function in a more effective and coordinated manner.

Response from Panellists for First Part of the Panel

LEANDRO DESPOUY, Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, said that the discussion had shown that discrimination against women existed in various areas and to different degrees. What was now left to do was to implement everything that existed on a legislative level, such as Ombudsmen for example. Local projects had to foster positive action, so that public policies could be spread and the media could play a very important role in that. It was important to review disparities in work life, such as different pay for men and women. A mechanism in the United Nations had to established, be it a Special Rapporteur or another mechanism.

FRANK LA RUE LEWY, Special Rapporteur on the protection and promotion on the right to freedom of opinion and expression, said it was very important to have legislation on freedom of expression in general, and to lift all forms of curtailment on this. The most important aspect was public policies - there had to be public policies to promote the freedom of expression of women. The debate between young boys and girls should be put into public policies, and awareness should be raised. Children should be encouraged to express their thoughts, and without the participation of women this could not be done. Media often reflected the discrimination that could exist in society for cultural reasons, and it was necessary to work with the media to break down these old systems. Mass media were crucial in eliminating gender inequality and all forms of discrimination.

MICHEAL O’FLAHERTY, Member of the Human Rights Committee, in his response to the discussion on issues and concerns raised by speakers on women’s human rights, said he associated himself with the calls for a Special Rapporteur who would take the necessary analysis and research with regard to discrimination and inequality before the law. On what the Human Rights Council could do, he suggested that the Universal Periodic Review could be much more engaged and exploited in the fight against discrimination against women, and it might be considered a standing item under this mechanism. In addition it might also be relevant for the Universal Periodic Review mechanism to use the relevant recommendations under the treaty bodies. On treaty bodies’ engagement, Mr. O’Flaherty said, this issue was not only the business of the Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women but should be reinforced in all treaty bodies. A reinforced commitment from all treaty bodies was necessary. The treaty bodies also needed to reinforce their general comments on various items pertaining to discrimination. He also recommended that more women should be elected to treaty bodies, where today only 5 out of 18 members of the Human Rights Committee were women. Furthermore, national institutions needed to give treaty bodies more information on discrimination and inequality before the law.

PRAMILA PATTEN, Member of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, said that the new United Nations mechanism that should be established would complement the work of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. It could for example compile a list on discriminatory laws that existed worldwide. She also recalled that some States still had reservations to Articles 2 and 16 of the Convention. Domestication of the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women in the national legislation was very important.

PHILIP ALSTON, Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, said the main question that had been raised was whether there were any specific measures to be taken that would make any real difference. The situation was rather strange in relation to women in the context of extrajudicial executions - women were not the major targets of killings by the police and military in a majority of cases, although this was not the case in some countries. It was therefore important to look at other areas, such as honour killings, which raised the problem of the situation in which Governments did not take seriously the killing of women, often in the context of sexual crime, and this raised the issue of how to ensure that the laws on the books were enforced. Incentives had to be provided to make sure that laws were enforced.

YAKIN ERTURK, Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences, in response to questions and concerns raised by speakers during the discussion on women’s human rights, said that the case raised on anti-lynching was a good practice for States to come to terms with the issue of honour killings. In some countries legal reforms had been made to have these crimes punishable by law, and in other countries efforts were made towards revising their laws to deal with this at the legal level. The Chilean delegation mentioned the Universal Periodic Review as a potential mechanism to be considered when dealing with the issue of women’s human rights, which she believed was an important mechanism to address the issue of gender. She recommended that establishing indicators on States’ responsibility in this regard would be useful. Further, she noted that there was ample ground within the international sphere to agree on such indicators, and hoped that the Human Rights Council would consider this seriously.


Continued Discussion for First Part of the Panel

In the continuing panel discussion, delegates raised such issues as the fight against sexism in areas of social life. Women must be given fair means in decision making processes. The gender structure in the United Nations did not need any change. The idea of the creation of a special mechanism on a worldwide list of discriminatory law had been discussed earlier and taking that idea up again showed disrespect for the outcome of the earlier discussions. Violence against women was never acceptable, be it domestic violence, human trafficking or other forms of violence. Impunity had to be fought systemically in such cases. Although much progress had been made in the area of gender equality, much was left to be done, especially regarding the implementation of existing legislative measures or the Beijing Platform of Action. The Universal Periodic Review mechanism had offered a new arena to review legislation which should be continued. Many delegations explained how their countries strengthened women’s position in society, for example through bridging the gap in education; measures that allowed women to participate in the labour market; establishment of gender research institutes; and particular support given to families with children. Most delegations explicitly reiterated that women were the equal of men in their society, in law and in practice. Women were granted privileges such as maternal leave and crèches at the workplace. Western countries referred to their recent past in which discrimination against women was still widespread. All the more, they were deeply committed to eliminate all forms of discrimination, including discrimination against women, in all parts of their societies. Many delegations stressed that discrimination persisted and asked about the reasons for this: was it simply a lack of political will? The process of elimination of laws that discriminated against women had to be accelerated.

Continued Response from Panellists forx First Part of the Panel

LEANDRO DESPOUY, Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, said discrimination and inequality of women before the law should be the subject of a special mechanism. The seriousness of this situation that existed in most countries made this a phenomenon which had to be eradicated. There should be harmonisation between existing mechanisms. It was also important for States to promote nationally specific measures to do away with inequality before the law, and the establishment of a list of discriminatory laws, done internationally, could be a very useful tool for dealing with this subject in United Nations bodies, in particular with regards to the Universal Periodic Review. The mechanism should encompass all rights, not only civil and political rights but also economic, social and cultural rights, and also labour possibilities, possibly in conjunction with the ILO. An Independent Expert could be appointed to draw up the terms of this future mandate and also to plan links with other instruments.

PRAMILA PATTEN, Member of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, in concluding comments, observed that a number of participants had raised questions about how the Human Rights Council and the human rights treaty bodies could work together to play a more effective role in the process of ensuring equality for women. The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women felt that the Council could use the Committee's work, in particular its concluding observations, to move forward efforts for women. The Committee in its work greatly valued the work of the Council, as well as that of non-governmental organizations and United Nations agencies. In that connection, she felt that the Universal Periodic Review process would benefit greatly by further involving non-governmental organizations and the United Nations agencies in that process.

Ms. Patten said she was extremely happy about the general recommendation on non-discrimination by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Her Committee would also be adopting a general recommendation on equality. Those were some of the key ways they could work together to combat discrimination.

Opening Statements for Second Part of the Panel

MAHA ABU-DAYYEH SHAMAS, Civil Society Representative, highlighted that various women’s groups irrespective of their cultural and religious context had struggled to achieve gender equality well before the establishment of the United Nations. The United Nations came and confirmed the universal values of human rights available in all religions and cultures and the responsibility to provide a framework and mechanism to ensure that Member States were supported and held accountable. So it was the responsibility of the United Nations to hold States accountable to ensure the promotion and protection of gender equality. Admittedly the various gender related United Nations accountability measures that had evolved over the years did make Governments look at themselves closely in relation to their gender policies. The third revised draft of the Constitution of Palestine appeared to create a strong framework for women’s rights. It provided for all Palestinians equal protection under the law without discrimination on the basis of sex, but also placed personal status law under the authority of religion, a separate system and religious authority, which governed marriage, divorce, custody and maintenance and was highly discriminatory in its treatment of women. These provisions might severely undercut the equality provisions in the Constitution. In the Palestinian context, many women’s rights were dependent on personal relationships rather than on the State, largely because of religious personal status law and conservative social practices. The right to work and the right to education, which were protected by the same Constitution, depended on whether families would allow women to exercise these rights.

RATNA KAPUR, Director of the Centre for Feminist Legal Research - India, said equality in relation to women always seemed to be one of those rights that were constantly the site of contest, negotiation, and even trade-off. In the years since the Vienna World Conference on Human Rights, women's human rights had come to be conflated with concerns over violence against women. The General Assembly, the Security Council, and even the Commission on the Status of Women had centred issues of violence, in particular sexual violence. While there was no doubt that this was an important area of concern, it had also produced unanticipated results. Many States had focused on amendments to criminal law in the domestic arena as a response to the campaign on violence against women. These interventions tended to treat women as passive objects rather than as full subjects entitled to rights. The proliferation of laws to counter sexual violence gave the impression that States were serious about women's rights and that something was being done. While responding to violence against women was important, focusing on sexual wrongs and criminal law did not and should not be equated with facilitating sexual rights or women's rights to equality.

A focus on violence tended to treat women, especially in the developing world, in a perpetual state of victimisation, without subjectivity, in need of rescue. A focus on violence against women also reinforced a protectionist approach to women, where gender stereotypes were reinforced together with cultural and racial stereotypes. Even when there was work being done in the area of equality it was usually limited to formal equality, namely treating women in the same way as men. This should not deflect attention from ensuring women's access to and representation at all levels of decision-making in developing and developed countries. While treating women as subjects of formal equal rights, it was no doubt better than treating them exclusively as victims or objects who needed protection. Substantive equality operated on the basis of historical disadvantage rather than along the sameness and difference divide. It required affirmative action or temporary special measures as integral to ensuring equality in results.

What was required was a more conscious strategy that focused on women's active substantive equality rather than victimisation, protectionism, or more formal equality. In the area of combating human trafficking, a large number of States had adopted measures which, while ostensibly protecting women, in effect prioritised the security, cultural cohesion and sexual purity of the receiving State rather than the rights of the women who moved. Substantive equality also did not allow gender difference from being used as a justification for excluding women from the workplace - it treated pregnancy as an important social function, valued in its own right. Substantive equality demanded affirmative action measures in the workplace to dismantle structural discrimination and address the sexual division of labour that kept women at the lower end of the labour market. What was seriously needed was a much more rigorous understanding of how women's equality rights were taken up in human rights; to delink measures to counter violence from those specifically designed to promote equality; to move away from an exclusive focus on women as victims or as vulnerable; and to ensure the adoption of more effective monitoring mechanisms over the implementation of States' commitments to promoting women's rights to substantive equality.

MARIANNE MOLLMANN, Civil Society Representative, said that the experience and research of civil society organizations around the world pointed to three main ways in which the laws discriminated against women: the use of the letter of the law; the disparate impact of laws; and excluding women from remedies. With regard to the use of the letter of the law, in the criminal area it was not uncommon that many types of women were discriminated against with regard to sexual and domestic violence. For example, rape definitions often excluded marital rape. Family law and personal status codes also continued to set out different rights and obligations for men and women, often with disastrous consequences for women. Also, in many countries, women were not members of the family for the purpose of holding land. That had a particularly disastrous effect in countries where HIV/AIDS devastated the populations. All of those laws directly affected women's rights to physical integrity, the right to work, the right to a family and others. It also perpetuated the notion that women were inferior to men.

Seemingly gender-neutral laws also often had a discriminatory effect, Ms. Mollmann continued. Those laws were particularly prominent in the employment and health areas. In the employment field, in some countries there were lesser protections in certain fields of employment, such as for health providers, most of whom were women. In the health area, many countries continued to criminalize or partially criminalize procedures women needed, such as abortion or tubal ligation, which gave rise to a number of inequalities, for example for pregnant teenage girls who were then forced to leave school. Finally, for many reasons women were unable to pursue justice and remedies for crimes committed against them, including fear of reprisal and a lack of funds. Until States provided economic alternatives for victims of violent crime, the promulgation of laws would have little effect.

The Council had to expose a number of erroneous beliefs. First, it had to expose the belief that strict equality for men and women was the appropriate approach. It also had to overcome the myth that to legislate for women's rights was to grant them special rights. Women had special needs because of their biology and because of historical factors. Finally, it had to debunk the myth that a legislative framework was not enough to ensure gender equality. In recommendations, Ms. Mollmann said the Council had to use its role to encourage and promote ratification of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, and the withdrawal of reservations to it. The Council should also consider establishing a gender focal point, which could consist of small group of States that sought to ensure integration of a gender perspective into the Council's work.

Discussion for Second Part of the Panel

Speakers said that the universal protection of women’s human rights and the enhancement of international cooperation aimed at improving the status of women in economic, social, cultural, civil and political affairs was important. Some speakers remained reserved on the proposal to create a new mechanism to address discrimination against women as it would infringe on the work of the Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, which was the universal guiding mechanism in this respect, and it would lead to polarized discussions. In addition the international community should focus efforts on ensuring full respect for diversity and better coordination of existing mechanisms. Many speakers attached great importance to the issue of women’s human rights and in particular discrimination against women before the law. Speakers encouraged guaranteeing women’s right to freedom of expression and opinion by fostering better access to the media. Non-discriminatory access to education benefited women as agents of change. Customary laws should be reviewed to ensure gender bias was removed. Ensuring a functioning gender mainstreaming policy ensured that women had access to spheres of life they were traditionally deprived of. Removing legislative barriers helped to ensure women’s equality in the educational sphere. Women who were part of migrant and indigenous populations, as well as being held in detention should be given particular attention as they were amongst the most vulnerable to such discrimination and social barriers.

No country could get ahead if half its population was left behind. Combating violence against women, promoting their political participation and ensuring they had access to health care were among the measures taken to advance the rights of women. The world continued to witness discrimination and violence against women, twenty years after the Fourth Conference on Women. Activities aimed at promoting the rights of women had been carried out in the social and education fields. Unfortunately laws that discriminated against women and girls were a common feature around the world. Violence against women had a relationship with the imbalance in power structures between men and women. In particular, family life laws - the legal age of marriage, the transfer of nationality to children, guardianship, marital power of the husband, among others, should be a focus for reform to address this imbalance. Existing United Nations mechanisms as well as special procedures had a crucial role to play in identifying problems of discrimination against women, and to exchange best practices to advance equalities between women and men, noted speakers. Gender equality was necessary for a paradigm shift in the world in order to ensure the rights of women. Sixty per cent of the poor in the world were women, were victims of human trafficking, prostitution, had limited access to political office and were paid less for the same jobs they performed as men did; these were just a few of the challenges that faced women around the world each day.

Response from Panellists for Second Part of the Panel

MAHA ABU-DAYYEH SHAMAS, Civil Society Representative, said that local women did understand their context and knew very well what the local women’s needs were. Living under occupation, as in Palestine, was different from living for example in Egypt. Legislation was promoted by local elites and power centers in order to hold on to power. But local voices had to be supported from the outside so that they could continue their work and influence local decisions. Support from United Nations bodies was very useful in that regard.

RATNA KAPUR, Director of the Centre for Feminist Legal Research of India, in response to issues raised by speakers, said with regard to the concerns raised on the establishment or creation of a new special mechanism on women’s human rights, she noted that the targeting of specific countries was unacceptable. She suggested that such a mechanism could expose myths and clarify reality in such countries. In addition, with respect to the point made that such a mechanism would conflict with the work of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, she reminded everyone that the conversations between countries and the Committee only happened every five years. Furthermore, she stressed that violence against women should not be equated with equality for women.

MARIANNE MOLLMANN, Civil Society Representative, said that there were no easy human rights issues. Women’s human rights issues were no different. She agreed that there was a need for an integrated treaty monitoring system and there was also a need for an effective treaty monitoring system. As was stated this morning, there was broad support for such a body in the Human Rights Council.

MICHAEL O'FLAHERTY, Member of the Human Rights Committee, said it was important to recognise the potential for and the complementarity of concluding observations and Universal Periodic Review recommendations. There should be a national consultative process before a Universal Periodic Review report was submitted to the Council, and this would give a necessary space to have a national human rights debate. It was also important for States to take issues of gender and the human rights of women out of the sectorial ghetto - the discourse on the part of some speakers today had somehow suggested that everything should be given to the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. Instead, the international community should recognise the value-added in the fight against discrimination of each treaty body. With regards to the utility of an instrument, there was an enormous protection gap which had been raised many times today. All of the concerns that had been put forward could be addressed as the Council discussed what shape such an instrument would take. On complementarity with other bodies such as the special procedures, experience to date across the United Nations human rights system showed that complementarity, when carefully constructed, could work very well indeed to the mutual benefit of all parts of the system.

PRAMILA PATTEN, Member of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, in her concluding remarks, said that 2005 as the target date for the elimination of discriminatory laws had come and gone, and this had not been achieved. If one looked at countries, there were discriminatory laws in all walks of life. The panel discussion had generated a level of concern with respect to discriminatory laws. The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women was grateful for the efforts made by the Human Rights Council to focus its work on women’s human rights, and appreciated the concerns and commitment reaffirmed through the Universal Periodic Review working group, which included among other things the definition of rape and gender based violence in South Africa. She looked forward to enhanced cooperation with the Human Rights Council, and encouraged Member States to continue to work towards the withdrawal of reservations on the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, specifically on article 2. Ms. Patten encouraged the support of establishing a new mechanism that would enhance the work of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women.

Continued Discussion for the Second Part of the Panel

Continuing the discussion, among the issues raised by speakers was that gender equality was still not a reality, and that women, children and girls continued to fight for equal recognition of their rights, and were the most vulnerable to human rights violations. The efforts of the international community to protect and promote the rights of women should be enhanced. Girls had the same right to schooling as boys, but the enjoyment of this right was often problematic. Women should move beyond archaic considerations, and a special mechanism to deal with discrimination against women was required to ensure that more effective solutions were found to violence against women in all its forms. In spite of efforts, a number of challenges remained, as demonstrated by the figures showing that women were employed less than men, although female students often outnumbered male students. Although the guaranteeing of the equal status of women in law was a major step forward, it was only a first step, and relevant laws had to be implemented, and necessary issues, such as the situation of women within traditional cultures, needed to be tackled.

Worldwide, State-ministered and sponsored discrimination impeded the enjoyment of women's rights, and there was a lack of meaningful commitment to the realisation of treaty obligations. There was a need to respond to reactionary ideological trends that aimed to prevent women from moving forward and progressing, taking their full place in the modern world. There was a need for substantive consideration of the gender issues in more technical ways before the Council in order to formulate a comprehensive forward-looking approach. Gender justice and women's empowerment was of importance to all States. Appropriate measures had to be taken at the local and regional level to improve the status of women and their access to justice. A more comprehensive and practical approach was needed in order to address issues of concern for women, but root causes such as hunger and prejudice needed to be tackled at the root. The international community had to take measures to resolve these problems, and ensure justice and sustainable development.

Continued Response from Panellists for Second Part of the Discussion

PRAMILA PATTEN, Member of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, said that this morning she spoke about the lack of political will as it was impeding the elimination of discriminatory laws. But of course there was also a lack of financial and technical capacity to draft laws. A special mechanism on discriminatory laws would be useful in that regard. Besides focusing on laws, besides drawing States Parties’ attention to laws, a special mechanism could promote repealing discriminating laws and work on model legislation. The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women was not concerned about duplication. The Committee could see such a mechanism as a standing body within the Committee or as an independent body.

Concluding Remarks by Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women

YAKIN ERTURK, Special Rapporteur on violence against women, said she wished to thank the representatives of Saudi Arabia, Moldova, and Tajikistan for their responses to her reports. She was particularly happy to learn that in each country further measures had been taken since her visit. She also wished to thank all other delegations and non-governmental organizations who commented on the reports and posed additional questions and the positive comments on the work of the mandate. Many of the issues raised were pertinent, and the questions were most challenging. Some of these would require further discussion within the Council - there was a wealth of background data available for these. The questions raised should continue to guide the Council in future negotiations. On what the Human Rights Council could do, first, there was the issue of indicators and statistics and State responsibility for violence against women. One of the major problems she had faced was to come up with comparable and reliable statistical data, as even in the best of countries, this data required improvement, and in many it simply did not exist. This led to very genuine concern on the part of Member States that the data sometimes used may not actually reflect reality. Thus, there was an urgent need to launch a programme in this regard.

This data was not only needed to make accurate assessments, but also to evaluate measures used to combat violence against women. The Council should request the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to follow up on the work of the General Assembly in this regard, and ensure that a human rights approach was reflected in the work against violence against women. Adoption of some basic guidelines by the Council on the issue of indicators could truly assist Governments at the national level to further their work on developing a gender-sensitive and gender-competent database. Secondly, further work of the Council needed to be done on women's rights to focus more closely on the situation of specific women's groups, such as Dalit women, disabled women, elderly and adolescent women, and women who suffered from particular types of vulnerabilities and discrimination. The Special Rapporteur should be asked to do such work and present recommendations to the Council on specific measures that needed to be taken to address the situation of these groups.

Thirdly, the Council should convene a meeting on the States due diligence responsibility and assess the obstacles and challenges they faced in the prosecution and compensation obligations in due diligence, and also share best practices. Finally, after having held this very important mandate for six years, Ms. Erturk felt that it was one of the most important tools available for the international mechanisms to work with States to improve the situation of women at all levels; however, there was the need to strengthen these mechanisms with follow-up mechanisms - there was a sort of vacuum in this regard. Innovative ways in which the existing valuable mechanisms could be strengthened with follow-up should be identified. The violence against women mandate could benefit by linking it to an existing funding source, and she had already made some efforts in this regard, such as discussing the issue with UNIFEM for funds to be made available for the implementation of the Special Rapporteur's recommendations in the future.

Right of Reply

SALVADOR TINAJERO ESQUIVEL (Mexico), speaking in a right of reply, said that for the Government of Mexico, normative and structural aspects of the administration of justice, including effective access to justice, were very important . Those aspects were fundamental to avoid corruption and impunity, which was a priority for Mexico. With regard to the recommendations that Mexico received in the Universal Periodic Review, Mexico would provide answers next week when the outcome on Mexico was examined. Mexico was committed to the ongoing dialogue between civil society and the Government and would continue this dialogue.


For use of the information media; not an official record

HRC09072E