HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL HOLDS INTERACTIVE DIALOGUE WITH SPECIAL MECHANISMS ON TRANSNATIONAL CORPORATIONS, MIGRANTS AND EDUCATION

The Human Rights Council this morning opened its eleventh session by adopting its agenda and holding an 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.

John Ruggie, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, in presenting his report, said that in the face of the worst global economic downturn in a century, some asked: was this the appropriate time to be addressing business and human rights - there had never been a more critical time, for three reasons. First, human rights were most at risk in times of crisis, and economic crises posed particular risks to economic and social rights. Any gains Governments believed could be had by lowering human rights standards for businesses were illusory, and no substantial recovery could be built on so flimsy a foundation. Second, the same types of governance gaps and governance failures that produced the current economic crisis also constituted the permissive environment for corporate-related human rights harm. Third, the solutions for the economic crisis and for business and human rights pointed in the same direction: Governments adopting policies that induced more responsible corporate behaviour, and companies adopting strategies that reflected the fact that their own long-term prospects were tightly coupled with society’s well-being.

Jorge Bustamante, Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants, said the report highlighted that the effective protection of the human rights of the child should be ensured in States of origin, transit and destination at every stage of the migration process, and in all migration management procedures. States, especially those of transit and destination, should devote special attention to the protection of undocumented and unaccompanied children, as well as to the protection of children seeking asylum and children victims of transnational organised crime, including trafficking in persons, smuggling, sale of children, child pornography and child prostitution. Two major protection gaps remained in most countries: the lack of specific provisions on children in most migration laws; and public policies aimed at children. The report also covered the Special Rapporteur's visits to Mexico and Guatemala.

Vernor Munoz, Special Rapporteur on the right to education, said his report focused on the right to education for persons in detention, a group that was subjected to general discrimination and to discrimination in educational matters in particular. In addition to consultations with Government and civil society organizations, it was especially important for the elaboration of the report to hear the voices of the detainees. The responses obtained were numerous, useful and confirmed the necessity that the relevant authorities took into account the needs of the persons deprived of freedoms while outlining the pedagogical strategies for them. This report showed the urgent need to redouble efforts to respect, protect and make available the right to education for detainees. Human dignity, the undeniable basis of human rights, implied the respect for the person, his current situation and in his potential. Given this, it was necessary that the penitentiary systems guaranteed access to formal and informal education.

Speaking this morning as concerned countries were Guatemala, Mexico and Malaysia.

During the interactive dialogue, speakers raised a range of issues on all three reports, including that in the current economic and financial crisis, lowering the guard of corporate responsibility or a compromise on human rights standards would be a mistake. Business activities must be conducted in a manner consistent with people’s enjoyment of their human rights. However, responsibility for ensuring human rights protection could not be shifted onto businesses and away from States. There was a need to make a distinction between adult and child migrants and to include a child rights perspective in national migration laws together with a gender dimension. The unaccompanied child, in particular the girl child in irregular migratory process, was probably one of the most vulnerable groups. Individuals had the right to dignity and to reinsertion into society following penal incarceration, and this reinsertion could be done thanks to education and professional training during detention. There was a close link between illiteracy and crime, or the return to crime.

Speaking this morning were representatives of Brazil, Argentina, Czech Republic on behalf of the European Union, Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, Russian Federation, United Kingdom, Switzerland, United Arab Emirates on behalf of the Arab Group, Turkey, Thailand, Sweden, Azerbaijan, India, Egypt on behalf of the African Group, United States, Algeria, Denmark, Finland, Djibouti, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Norway, Philippines, Yemen, Canada, Portugal and China.

This morning’s discussion is being held under the Council’s agenda item three, namely promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development.

This afternoon the Council is scheduled to hear a statement by the Minister of Disaster Management and Human Rights of Sri Lanka, after which it will conclude its list of speakers for this morning's interactive dialogue, and hold interactive dialogues with the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, the Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression, and the Special Rapporteur on the right to health.

Documents

The Council has before it the report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises (A/HRC/11/13 and Add.1) which recapitulates the key features of the “protect, respect and remedy” framework and outlines the strategic directions of the Special Representative’s work streams to date in operationalizing the framework. The framework rests on three pillars: the State duty to protect against human rights abuses by third parties, including business, through appropriate policies, regulation, and adjudication; the corporate responsibility to respect human rights, which in essence means to act with due diligence to avoid infringing on the rights of others; and greater access by victims to effective remedy, judicial and non-judicial. The three pillars are complementary in that each supports the others. The Special Representative’s new mandate is intended to translate the framework into practical guiding principles. In conclusions, the Special Representative responds to the question of whether, in the face of what may be the worst worldwide economic downturn in a century, this is the appropriate time to be addressing business and human rights. He indicated that human rights are most at risk in times of crisis, and economic crises pose a particular risk to economic and social rights. Now more than ever, therefore, the business and human rights agenda matters. Second, the same types of governance gaps and failures that produced the current economic crisis also constitute what the Special Representative has called the permissive environment for corporate wrongdoing in relation to human rights. In short, business and human rights is not an ephemeral issue to be considered at some future date. It is and must remain at the core of our common concerns today.

Addendum one, which provides an overview of international and regional provisions, commentary and decisions on the State obligation to provide access to remedy for human rights abuses by third parties, including business, states that the State duty to protect is grounded in international human rights law, which provides that States are obliged to take appropriate steps both to prevent corporate-related abuse of the rights of individuals within their territory and/or jurisdiction and to investigate, punish and redress such abuse when it does occur – in other words, to provide access to remedy.

The Council has before it the report of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants (A/HRC/11/7 and Adds.1-3) which focuses on the protection of children in the context of migration, recalling the obligation of the State to ensure the protection of all children in all stages of the migration process. In the report, the Special Rapporteur presents an overview of the international legal framework applicable, proposes a conceptual framework and refers briefly to three categories of children affected by the migration process: those left behind by migrating family members; migrant children moving across borders; and migrant children in host countries. The report notes that children who are unaccompanied or separated from their parents are particularly vulnerable to human rights violations and abuses at all stages of the migration process. It also identifies that most migration laws do not adopt a children’s rights perspective, nor do they have specific provisions on children. In conclusions and recommendations, the Special Rapporteur highlights the importance of an adequate legal framework for the protection of the rights of all children in the context of migration. States, especially those of transit and destination, should devote special attention to the protection of undocumented, unaccompanied and separated children and should recognize that migrant children, especially those unaccompanied, are most exposed to the worst forms of child labour. The Special Rapporteur further encourages States to take effective measures to guarantee the birth registration of children born outside their parents’ country of origin and to uphold the principle of avoiding statelessness.

Addendum one gives an account of communications transmitted by the Special Rapporteur between 1 January 2008 and 6 March 2009, as well as replies received from Governments until 6 May 2009, and observations of the Special Rapporteur, where appropriate.

Addendum two is the report of the Special Rapporteur’s mission to Mexico from 9 to 15 March 2008 in which he analyses the protection of migrants in Mexico from a comprehensive perspective, placing Mexico in the context of regional migration flows to the United States and from Central America. It highlights the legal framework pertaining to the human rights of migrants at the federal level, underscoring gaps in implementation of existing laws, and noting problematic policies. In conclusions and recommendations, the Special Rapporteur notes a general absence of public consciousness about the severity and extent of migrant child labour practices in Mexico, and calls for immediate measures to be taken by the Government of Mexico. The Special Rapporteur also observes the involvement of the armed forces and private security personnel in the handling of migrants, a practice not afforded to them under international nor federal law and he recommends that Mexico take appropriate steps to ensure that migration control and securing of migrants are carried out exclusively by the competent authorities.

Addendum three is the report of the Special Rapporteur’s visit to Guatemala from 24 to 28 March 2008. The purpose of the mission was to examine the status of the human rights of migrants for whom Guatemala is a country of origin or destination and especially of transit through an analysis of the national and international legal framework for the protection of migrants and of the public policies and programmes put in place by the Government. In the report, the Special Rapporteur notes with concern the information received about cases in which, during the interception and deportation of migrants from the United States to Guatemala, various abuses were committed, including physical ill-treatment, lack of medical assistance in detention centres, lack of information on the deportation and lack of communication with consular representatives.

The Council has before it the report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to education (A/HRC/11/8 and Adds.1-3) on the right to education of persons in detention, a group subject to discrimination generally and to discrimination in the provision of education specifically. The report indicates that learning in prison through educational programmes is generally considered to have an impact on recidivism, reintegration and, more specifically, employment outcomes upon release. Education is however much more than a tool for change; it is an imperative in its own right. However, prisoners face significant educational challenges owing to a range of environmental, social, organizational and individual factors. In conclusions and recommendations, the Special Rapporteur recommends that education for people in detention should be guaranteed and entrenched in Constitutional and/or other legislative instruments. Also, authorities in charge of public education should make available to all detainees, whether sentenced or in remand, education programmes that would cover at least the curriculum of compulsory education at the primary and, if possible, at the secondary level.

A first addendum gives an account of communications transmitted by the Special Rapporteur between 1 March 2008 and 15 March 2009, as well as replies received between 15 April 2008 and 30 April 2009. Observations made by the Special Rapporteur have also been included where applicable.

Addendum two is the report of the Special Rapporteur’s mission to Malaysia between 5 and 13 February 2007. The report states that in the course of the mission the Special Rapporteur examined the status of the right to education, covering all levels: preschool, primary, secondary and tertiary education. The Special Rapporteur found that Malaysia has made major efforts to improve its education system and intends it to become one of the most important engines of development in the country. However, many people still do not have access to any type of education, such as refugee children, asylum-seekers, stateless persons, children of migrant workers, undocumented people, street children, and indigenous children who mostly live in remote locations. He also observed that corporal punishment is a common practice in schools, despite the Government’s stated intention to eliminate the practice.

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

Presentation of Reports

JOHN G. RUGGIE, Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, in his presentation of his report to the United Nations Human Rights Council, said that for the first time, there was now a common platform of differentiated yet complementary State and corporate responsibilities on the basis of which to move this agenda forward. The Council had also extended his mandate, he noted, by tasking him with providing “practical recommendations” and “concrete guidance” to States, businesses and other social actors on the framework’s implementation. His 2009 report provided an update on work begun in fulfilment of the new mandate. He said that he also submitted an addendum clarifying the nature of State obligations to provide access to remedy for human rights abuses by business. Furthermore, as in the past, he relied heavily on research and consultations; two major regional consultations in New Delhi and Buenos Aires had been conducted already. He thanked the Governments of India and Argentina for facilitating these as well as highly informative bilateral discussions that were held.

In the face of the worst global economic downturn in a century, some asked: was this the appropriate time to be addressing business and human rights? His answer was a resounding yes: there had never been a more critical time, for three reasons, said Mr. Ruggie. First, human rights were most at risk in times of crisis, and economic crises posed particular risks to economic and social rights. Any gains Governments believed could be had by lowering human rights standards for businesses were illusory, and no substantial recovery could be built on so flimsy a foundation. Second, the same types of governance gaps and governance failures that produced the current economic crisis also constituted the permissive environment for corporate-related human rights harm. Starting with his first report in 2006, he said he maintained that the widening gaps between the scope and impact of economic forces and consequences were unsustainable. Third, the solutions for the economic crisis and for business and human rights pointed in the same direction: Governments adopting policies that induced more responsible corporate behaviour, and companies adopting strategies that reflected the fact that their own long-term prospects were tightly coupled with society’s well-being.

Mr. Ruggie said he was currently developing guiding principles under each of the framework’s three pillars: States’ duty to protect, corporate responsibility to respect human rights and access to remedy. The Special Representative said that under the States’ duty to protect, he was examining four sets of issues. Governments needed to preserve their ability to meet their human rights obligations; they needed to consider human rights when they did business with business – whether as owners, insurers, procurers, or simply promoters; and even when Governments were not connected directly to a business venture, they needed to foster corporate cultures respectful of human rights at home and abroad. Looking at the role of international cooperation, Mr. Ruggie said that nowhere was cooperation more critical than in situations where societies were torn apart by civil war or other major social strife. Therefore, he was exploring the possibility of working with an informal group of home and host States to generate ideas about effective approaches and tools States could employ to help guide companies operating in conflict affected areas. On the framework’s second pillar: the corporate responsibility to respect human rights, he said this was the minimum requirement for companies in all situations. Furthermore, on the third pillar: access to remedy – without which efforts to protect and respect rights could be rendered weak or even meaningless, the mandate’s ongoing work examined both judicial and non-judicial remedy.

JORGE BUSTAMANTE, Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants, said his thematic report this year focused on the protection of children in the context of migration. The report highlighted that the effective protection of the human rights of the child should be ensured in States of origin, transit and destination at every stage of the migration process, and in all migration management procedures. States, especially those of transit and destination, should devote special attention to the protection of undocumented and unaccompanied children, as well as to the protection of children seeking asylum and children victims of transnational organised crime, including trafficking in persons, smuggling, sale of children, child pornography and child prostitution. Two major protection gaps remained in most countries: the lack of specific provisions on children in most migration laws; and public policies aimed at children.

The report also contained two recommendations to encourage information-sharing among States with the assistance of stakeholders. States should strengthen efforts to collect data and measure the impact of migration on children in countries of origin, transit and destination, with due regard for the opportunities and challenges for children in all stages of the migration process. States were especially encouraged to share across boundaries and regions information about key indicators of the impact of migration on children as well as common challenges and best practices to address migrant children protection-related gaps at all levels. With regards to the communications report, the situations in which violations of the human rights of migrants were alleged to have occurred during the period under review included allegations of arbitrary detention, repatriation of migrants facing the threat of torture in countries of origin, racism, xenophobia, discrimination and related intolerance against migrants, and others.

During the period under review, Mr. Bustamante also visited Mexico and Guatemala. With regards to Mexico, he drew attention to key migration challenges, including assistance to migrants as well as border control and the detention of migrants, organised crime networks, and impunity, and highlighted efforts made by the authorities to improve the handling of detention centres, training of border officials, return and protection of children, and included a number of recommendations for the Government. With regards to Guatemala, he reflected on the national and international legal framework for the protection of migrants, and the public policies and programmes put in place by the Government. He noted the Government's interest in addressing some of the problems related to the human rights of migrants, and noted with concern some gaps and ambiguities in the legislative framework regulating migration. He also highlighted efforts made by the authorities to adopt a more comprehensive approach to the management of migration.

VERNOR MUNOZ VILLALOBOS, Special Rapporteur on the right to education, said that since the presentation of the last report, he had paid an official visit to Guatemala in July 2008 and a visit to Paraguay in April 2009, the reports on which would be presented in the next cycle. In addition, he had met with Government officials, non-governmental organizations, multilateral organizations, United Nations agencies, schools, universities, teachers and students and human rights institutions in almost all regions of the world. Today’s report focused on the right to education for persons in detention, a group that was subjected to general discrimination and to discrimination in educational matters in particular. In addition to consultations with Government and civil society organizations, he underlined that it was especially important for the elaboration of the report to hear the voices of the detainees. The responses obtained were numerous, useful and confirmed the necessity that the relevant authorities took into account the needs of the persons deprived of freedoms while outlining the pedagogical strategies for them.

This report showed the urgent need to redouble efforts to respect, protect and make available the right to education for detainees. Mr. Munoz recalled that opportunities for apprenticeships inside prisons had a decisive impact on the social reintegration and employment opportunities after release from prisons. They had to be aware that the right to education was a right in itself which could not be neglected as a consequence of the deprivation of freedom and could not be reduced to utilitarian ends. Although detention was for the majority of the detainees only temporary, it was often forgotten that the consequences of not guaranteeing their right to education increased poverty, discrimination and the stigmatization of the detainees and that returned to their communities of origin. The effect was particularly strong with adolescents that rarely went back to schools once they left the prison. Human dignity, the undeniable basis of human rights, implied the respect for the person, his current situation and in its potential. Given that apprenticeship makes the development of the individual possible, it was necessary that the penitentiary systems guaranteed access to formal and informal education.

Mr. Munoz said that more than nine million persons were detained in the world, either waiting for trial or serving sentences. The number of persons detained had risen during the last years in 73 per cent of the countries. The majority of prisoners were in situations of social disadvantage when they went onto prison. Women, in addition, suffered from unemployment and poverty and many came from backgrounds of abuse and violence. The education strategies were indifferent to the actual needs of the persons detained and did not take account of the needs of women or persons with disabilities. Despite the fact that the right to education was reflected in many constitutions, not all States guaranteed that right to prisoners. This right was sometimes denied as additional means of punishment or was not granted for security reasons. Mr. Munoz was particularly preoccupied by the fact that some States with a significant immigrant population had determined that it was not necessary to devise educational programmes specifically for those groups. The information received by civil society showed a very different perspective with respect to the State report, which revealed the importance of integrating those organizations in the search for practical solutions to guarantee the human right of education to persons deprived of liberty.

Statements by Concerned Countries

CARLOS RAMIRO MARTINEZ ALVARADO (Guatemala), speaking as a concerned country with regard to the report of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants, said that during these two days the Council would hear from various Special Rapporteurs on either their visits, talks or working meetings with respect to their prepared reports on Guatemala. This showed the openness and spirit of cooperation that the Government of Guatemala attached to their work. Guatemala thanked the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants for his presentation. Guatemala was a transit and destination country for migrant workers. The authorities of the country sought to create various mechanisms that guaranteed effective processes for migrant workers and migrant flows. For instance, the Government had adopted a law on migration that covered the rights of nationals and foreigners; the law of development stipulated that the law should help establish the rights of migrants through law; and the law of the National Council was tasked with the coordination, definition, supervision and control of all parties of the State that lent care to all Guatemalans and migrants and their families. Additionally there was also a law being developed on the relationship between migrants and human trafficking. This law aimed to do away with all issues relating to human trafficking. The Government of Guatemala reiterated its commitment to continuing efforts for the protection and promotion of the rights of migrants and their families.

MABEL GOMEZ OLIVER (Mexico), speaking as a concerned country with regard to the report of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants, said Mexico was committed to the universality of human rights and thus the protection and promotion of all human rights for all, regardless of their nationality or status as migrants. Mexico was developing an overall policy on migration, and had taken several measures to meet the concerns raised in the report. The full protection of the human rights of migrants required permanent work and dedication, and also required a full revision of Mexico's laws that could affect their enjoyment. Mexico was aligning itself with its international obligations in order to make migrants less vulnerable to trafficking. With regards to training of officials and law enforcement personnel, a periodic training programme had been implemented that aimed to give more knowledge about human rights and their enforcement to those officials in areas of high migrant flows. A national network for care of victims had also been created to aid those who suffered from the abuse of power by public officials. Hostels and care facilities had been set up both sides of the border, providing for unaccompanied children. A seminar had been held on the rights of children, with the participation of all levels of the Government. Support had been given to children by including the participation of all stakeholders, including civil society. The rights of migrants and the work of the Special Rapporteur on the subject were very important for Mexico, based on the principle of universality, and that the enjoyment of these rights were not subject to any restriction, whether that be a border or another constraint.

AMIR SALLEH (Malaysia), speaking as a concerned country with regard to the report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to education, said that since the visit of the Special Rapporteur in 2007, several major developments had shaped the field of education in Malaysia. These developments were primarily extrinsic and intrinsic, the former brought about by, among others, the need for the Government to respond to the ongoing global financial and economic crisis and the latter related to the achievements and results of the policy planning and implementation process by the Government in the field of education. In response to the global economic and financial crisis, Malaysia had implemented an Educational Planning and Development Masterplan 2006-2010 and in addition the Government had introduced two economic and financial stimulus packages aimed at keeping the national economy moving. Education of children from preschools up until secondary school level continued to be given high priority. With regard to the Special Rapporteur’s observation on the alleged dissatisfaction of ethnic communities in Malaysia concerning the purported lack of material support for these schools from the Government, Malaysia categorically denied such allegations. For Chinese and Indian schools, the medium of instruction was the respective mother tongue, while the national language was taught as a compulsory subject.

CARLOS RAMIRO MARTINEZ ALVARADO (Guatemala), speaking as a concerned country with regard to the report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to education, thanked the Special Rapporteur for the information presented in his report. Following the visit of the Special Rapporteur in July 2008, the Educational Plan 2008-2012, which was a cross-cutting long-term programme, established policies that aimed at improving access and quality of education for boys and girls from poorer communities. The Government tried to increase funding to education by decentralizing the institutions for education. The increase in coverage of education was due to the implementation of programmes, such as the Free Schooling Programme. Eleven million dollars was allocated to cover operational costs in various schools. On infrastructure the Ministry of Education funded projects that built 22 new primary schools, 64 multi grade schools, 321 health services, 1,500 new lecture halls and 952 lecture halls were also modernized. This was a very important increase, said the delegation, because the budget percentage had increased for this year, although in the future there would be an adequate input into education, this had to be done in phases. A total of 2.8 per cent of the Gross Domestic Product was allocated to education and this would increase to 3.1 per cent when earmarked funds had been included on access to education. The Government continued to work in order to obtain all the targets set and covered in the recommendations of the Special Rapporteur.

Interactive Dialogue

MARIA NAZARETH FARANI AZEVEDO (Brazil) said Brazil welcomed the report of the Special Representative on transnational corporations, and supported his work of the three pillars framework "protect, respect and remedy" regarding the relationship between human rights and transnational corporations. This was a key issue of these times - the global financial and economic crisis had shown that the public and private sectors must work together in order to minimise the negative impacts of market turmoil for those in vulnerable conditions. Initiatives such as the Special Session on the financial and economic crisis showed that the Council was acutely conscious about the interdependence among economic policies and human rights. On migrants, as well as on the right to education, Brazil was deeply concerned with the matter of the protection of children in the context of migration. Due to their vulnerable condition, particular attention should be given to migrant children and their special needs.

SEBASTIAN ROSALES (Argentina) informed the Council about a meeting held for the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises that had taken place in May in Buenos Aires. The meeting was organized based on the three principles suggested by the Special Representative of the United Nations for human rights and corporations: the duty of States to protect human rights against abuses committed by third parties, including corporations; the responsibility of corporations to respect human rights; and the need to better access to effective remedies for victims. The access to legal help was often difficult, since the legal system was not very well developed. Without doubt, only very few corporations had put into practice systems that allowed them to know with a certain degree of certainty their degree of respect for human rights. An awareness raising process was now necessary in order to prevent and address the adverse effects in the area of human rights. Judicial mechanisms and institutions such as the Ombudsman or national human rights institutions had been suggested by the Special Rapporteur. Argentina now had to establish such institutions and provide easy access to them.

ZUZANA STIBOROVA (Czech Republic), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that the European Union thanked all three Special Rapporteurs for their comprehensive reports. The European Union considered that business activities must be conducted in a manner consistent with people’s enjoyment of their human rights. However, responsibility for ensuring human rights protection could not be shifted onto businesses and away from States. With regard to Mr. Ruggie’s report, where he said that some National Contact Points had developed innovative governance structures, transparency measures and mediation capacity that merited further attention, he was asked if there were any common elements between these examples; and could they be transferable from one country to another? The European Union was aware of the need to make a distinction between adult and child migrants and to include a child rights perspective in national migration laws together with a gender dimension. Mr. Bustamante was asked how could the gender dimension regarding child migrants be best applied; and what measures could be implemented to ensure that this dimension was effectively included in national law? With regard to the report on education, Mr. Munoz was asked what concrete steps would he suggest that States take in order to be successful in the implementation of his recommendations.

MARGHOOB SALEEM BUTT (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, said with regards to human rights and transnational corporations, the Organization of the Islamic Conference agreed that Governments needed to induce greater corporate responsibilities in their policies and companies' strategies should reflect that their own long-term prospects were tightly coupled with the well-being of society as a whole. In the current economic and financial crisis, lowering the guard of corporate responsibility or a compromise on human rights standards would be a mistake. Early and pro-development conclusion of the Doha Round at the World Trade Organization, rejection of protectionist policies and innovative financing mechanisms could greatly contribute to generating employment, which would have a direct and positive impact on the fulfilment of corporate responsibility and realisation of basic human rights. The Special Rapporteur on the right to education had also brought to fore an important topic for consideration - education for persons in detention was the first step towards their rehabilitation. Support and assistance of the international community could play an important role in addressing the needs of the marginalised groups. The Special Rapporteur should focus on the international cooperation dimension in his future work.

DMITRY STEGNIY (Russian Federation) said that the importance of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur for education was increasing, especially in the current economic and financial crisis. Regarding education and migration, the Russian Federation said that it was an overall very positive development, especially as it increased the chances for the children of migrants. Russia was convinced and agreed with the Special Rapporteur that creating legal labour migration was the most important step in this field. Further, special social programmes had to be developed that took into account the needs of migrant children. Clearly, Russia thought that education should meet all general education standards, but measures taken by States were in the interest, above all, of those States.

PETER GOODERHAM (United Kingdom) said the United Kingdom remained a strong supporter of Mr. Ruggie’s efforts to operationalise the “protect, respect and remedy framework”, and welcomed his decision to establish a leadership group to advise on how best to ensure that businesses worldwide respected international human rights standards. The United Kingdom was keen for further information about his plans to develop a policy tool kit for States to ensure that human rights in conflict zones were not negatively affected by corporations. The United Kingdom also strongly supported one of the report’s key messages: in the current difficult economic climate it was more important than ever for Governments around the world to take forward their work on business and human rights. Any attempt by States to lower human rights protection with a view to attract business would be counter-productive in terms of creating a platform for sustainable development. The United Kingdom welcomed the specific guidance that Mr. Ruggie offered to States in terms of how to take forward their duty to protect in this context, including, inter alia, adopting anti-discrimination legislation, consulting with communities before approving mining and logging projects and encouraging businesses to develop codes of conduct that included human rights. What were the major trends that he saw in corporate social responsibility and what were the drivers of these?

MURIEL BERSET. (Switzerland) said with regards to the report on human rights and transnational corporations, it indicated the outlines of the framework document "protect, respect and remedy", and, in the context of the obligation of States to protect and the responsibility of companies to respect human rights, the report provided new elements. It mentioned the economic crisis, noting that it was an opportunity to better regulate companies from a human rights standard. Investment on the basis of criteria such as respect for human rights guaranteed better profit in the long-term. The report spoke of vertical incoherence, and the Representative should explain the role of national policy on the social responsibility of businesses. In countries where national law was difficult to impose and the rule of law was not fully developed, businesses had a greater responsibility, as they did in conflict zones. With regards to the right to education, the report underlined that individuals had the right to dignity and to reinsertion into society following penal incarceration, and this reinsertion could be done thanks to education and professional training during detention.

OBAID SALEM SAEED AL ZAABI (United Arab Emirates), speaking on behalf of the Arab Group, said the Arab Group shared the opinion of the Special Rapporteur that imprisonment should not in any way interfere with the basic right of education. One of the basic objectives of the penal system was to reinsert the persons into society after having served their time. There was a close link between illiteracy and crime or the return to crime. The policies of Governments in that regard had great importance. The Arab Group concurred with the Special Rapporteur that the lack of such education could not be justified with lack of resources by Governments; such resources as well as technical knowledge had to be allocated by Governments. The Arab Group was ready to be guided by the recommendations of the Special Rapporteur to enforce the right of education in prisons. The Arab Group would like to hear more about the Special Rapporteur’s opinion on Palestinian detainees in Israeli prisons and their right to education.

FATIH ULUSOY (Turkey) expressed appreciation to Mr. Bustamante for taking up the issue of protection of migrant children which indeed deserved the attention of the Council. The unaccompanied child, particularly the girl child in irregular migratory process, was probably one of the most vulnerable groups. They could easily become victims of traffickers. Turkey supported initiatives to combat human trafficking and to protect the rights of these victims. Turkey fully concurred with the Special Rapporteur that the protection of children should be duly discussed within the context of migration. The Council should in its deliberations address different situations including the right to education of migrant children. For a successful integration, it was crucial that migrant children should not be the victims of an educational system in host countries. They should be given equal opportunities. Furthermore, they should be able to keep up education in their own language on a voluntary basis. Turkey took note of the good practices mentioned in the report on ensuring the right to education of the migrant child. Turkey sought the views of Special Rapporteurs on the right to education and on migrants with regard to education opportunities in mother tongue for migrant children.

PITCHAYAPHANT CHARNBHUMIDOL (Thailand) said Thailand believed that migration needed to be managed in a comprehensive manner, taking into consideration all the relevant matters involved - and when it came to the rights of children, countries of origin, transit and destination bore a joint responsibility. States should strengthen their efforts in collecting data on the impact of migration on children, and should share this data across countries and regions - however, this task should not be left to States alone, civil society and non-governmental organizations had first-hand information, and hence a multi-sectoral and multi-stakeholder approach should bring about a more accurate and comprehensive assessment of the situation. Education for persons in prisons was a question of human rights and human dignity - however, in reality, questions of capacity and resources came into play. International cooperation in this regard may assist States in their efforts to improve prison conditions as well as education for those in detention. Education for persons in prisons should meet the real needs of the persons themselves, and should provide them with concrete tools and skills that would help them sustain their lives - this should help enhance their reintegration into society.

ANNA UGGLA (Sweden) said that the current economic and financial crisis added an extra urgency to the work of Professor John Ruggie, Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights and transnational enterprises. Most countries, including the majority of developing countries, were hard hit by the effects of this crisis. In his report, the Special Representative underlined that the current crisis represented both challenges and opportunities. Which were the policy measures by States that he saw as particularly urgent in the current situation in order to promote respect to human rights and accountability in the business and human rights domain? The responsibility to uphold the respect of human rights rested with the State. For Sweden, it was important that this fundamental principle of the international human rights regime, which was so important to the individual’s right to effective remedy and enjoyment of rights, was clearly acknowledged in the report. At the same time, Sweden acknowledged that there was currently a limited number of areas, mostly in countires ravaged by conflict, where the State effectively had ceased to function or did not exercise sufficient control. As he stated in his report, it was unsurprising that the most egregious corporate-related abuses typically occurred in these situations.

ELCHIN AMIRBAYOV (Azerbaijan) welcomed the Special Rapporteurs and thanked them for their presentations. With regard to the report on migrants, it was noted that the report mainly focused on the relevant international legal framework on the protection of child migrants, but it would had been preferred to see some information about the scale of the topic that would give a more comprehensive picture about the issue under review. Child migrants were one of the most vulnerable groups to exploitation in the workplace and sexual exploitation. They did not have access to education. In some cases, children from a migrant background suffered from denial of birth registration, discrimination and even from statelessness. According to some estimates, every year 1.2 million children became victims of trafficking. Azerbaijan agreed with the Special Rapporteur that criminalization of irregular migration violated human rights and child victims of transnational organized crime should not be regarded as criminals. In the report of the Special Rapporteur where he recommended participation of children left behind in the countries of origin in the design and implementation of public policies, he was asked how child involvement in this field was envisaged.

ACHAMKULANGARE GOPINATHAN (India) said it was not merely the State, but also non-State actors, particularly the business sector, which had the responsibility to secure the observance of human rights. The current economic and financial crises had only deepened the relevance of the Special Representative's mandate by exposing the limitations of the market, the need to strengthen governance, and the baseline corporate responsibility to do no harm. The Representatives should develop model investment and trade agreements for States, and also explore how UNCTAD could be tapped for awareness-raising and capacity-building of States since it was the developing countries that seemed to have the most lopsided bilateral investment agreements. Very few companies had systems in place to conduct due diligence on the human rights impact of their business. The Representative had also focused on the barriers to judicial remedies for victims of corporate human rights abuses, and he should present options to overcome these in his next report.

HEBA MOSTAFA RIZK (Egypt), speaking on behalf of the African Group, said that the African Group welcomed the framework governing the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on human rights and transnational corporations, which was based on the three interrelated pillars of States’ duty to protect, companies’ duty to respect and greater access by victims to remedies. The Group also called on the Special Rapporteur to include in his efforts in this regard an examination of the contribution of transnational corporations to the national development efforts of host countries, including but not limited to the transfer of technology from a right to development perspective, the exercise of corporate social responsibility and protection of labor rights. Furthermore, the African Group encouraged the Special Rapporteur to pursue his declared objective of elaborating possible guidance on how to prevent corporate-related abuse in conflict affected areas. As for the report of the Special Rapporteur to Education, the African Group expressed its appreciation for examining the question of the right to education of person in detention. However, there was clearly a resource constraint in the case of developing countries in implementing the new vision for the improvement of the prison system which in these countries tended to be overcrowded and inadequately resourced. What specific recommendations could the Special Rapporteur present to overcome these resource constraints and to encourage better sharing of experiences and best practices between different countries?

OMAR HILALE (Morocco) expressed thanks to the Special Rapporteur on the right to education for his visit to Morocco in 2006, which allowed him to see the major progress made by the Government of Morocco through reforms and policies in this very important sector. The inclusion of the right to education for people in detention was welcomed, as this group of people generally suffered from difficult conditions and humiliation. Morocco shared the Special Rapporteur’s view that Governments had an obligation to protect and promote these rights in cooperation with civil society. It was important to pay particular attention to social and cultural activities as well as literacy programmes for persons in detention, as these would greatly improve their education and access to education. Morocco attached great importance to education for all Moroccans, and as such implemented policies and laws to protect that right for its citizens. Professional training was provided in detention facilities to help their reintegration into society. The measures taken in Morocco ensured the right to education for the people in detention was further illustrated with the work done through the Mohammed 6 Foundation. It taught literacy and conducted crafts and trades workshops to help assist the reintegration process. There were special cultural and sporting activities as well for persons held in detention.

LAWRENCE RICHTER (United States) said the work of the Special Representative to develop a constructive policy framework through which to examine the complex issues surrounding business and human rights were appreciated - the policy framework also helpfully moved this dialogue away from past efforts which blurred the roles of States and companies with respect to responsibility to enforce human rights obligations. States, companies and civil society all had an important role to play with respect to human rights around the world. Companies had a responsibility to promote respect for human rights, and the human rights due diligence approach articulated by the Special Representative could be a useful tool in promoting discussions about human rights risks. Civil society's role in bringing attention to human rights injustices and serving as a voice for victims was vital and should be supported. The United States was committed to voluntary initiatives that promoted business and human rights, and commended the Special Representative for engaging all stakeholders in meaningful dialogue.

IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria) welcomed the initiative of the Special Rapporteur on migrants to devote his report to children. It was regrettable that the implementation of the International Convention on Migrant Workers was hindered by its non-ratification by the industrialized countries that had confirmed their commitment to human rights. As to education in prison establishments, Algeria said that it was an integral part of Algeria’s prison system. Education was a long term process and should not be interrupted by imprisonment. Education prevented repeat offending and helped reintegration into society. The efforts by the Algerian Government were illustrated by the success rate of the baccalaureate, in 2008, 40 per cent of prisoners had taken the exam and 34 who had passed it received a presidential pardon consequently. New means of financing had to be developed in order to support the least developed countries in their efforts to provide education in prison.

MARIE-LOUISE OVERVAD (Denmark) thanked all three Special Rapporteurs, but would only be addressing the report of Professor Ruggie on human rights and business in particular. Denmark strongly supported his comprehensive and participatory methodology and appreciated the information with regard to the development of this set of guiding principles. The guidelines would be a great value to all stakeholders, but most importantly to private companies. Denmark asked Mr. Ruggie for examples of where and how the economic crisis specifically affected the human rights standards for business and what his immediate recommendations in such cases had been? In relation to the section of the report on “States duty to protect”, States were criticized for not using existing international forums as effectively as they could and among others mentioned was the Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review. How could States better use this forum in relation to the “duty to protect”? Under the section regarding the “responsibility to respect” he mentioned one of the toughest dilemmas companies faced was where national law significantly contradicted international human rights standards. What were the recommendations to companies facing such dilemmas?

HANNU HIMANEN (Finland) said the primary responsibility for the protection and promotion of human rights rested with the State and its representatives. The international community had its own role to promote the capacities of national duty bearers and rights holders as well. However, the role of the private sector was increasingly important, especially when it came to the realisation of rights of labour, consumers and local residents. Private corporations operated in a global environment, and some public services were mandated to be taken care of by private actors - this highlighted the importance of international codes of conduct. The role of the Special Representative on human rights and transnational corporations was pivotal in bringing together the various initiatives and actors. States bore the responsibility for the protection and implementation of human rights, private corporations were obligated to respect the law, and, in case of breaches, rights holders had adequate access to effective remedy. The Representative should explore possibilities to develop criteria for a grievance mechanism in cases where the national legal, protective and monitoring mechanisms were inadequate.

ABBAS DAHER DJAMA (Djibouti) said that education was a factor of integration, especially for prisoners. Detainees were often poor, came from a disadvantaged background and often remained without education. Training of prisoners was one of the guarantees of reintegration and prevented repeat offenders. Special attention had to be given to the needs of women and children in order to reintegrate them in school or to find decent work. Particularly the least developed countries should get support in order to establish an efficient education programme that corresponded to the needs of the detainees, as the Special Rapporteur had suggested. Djibouti supported the Special Rapporteur’s view that detention should only be the last resort since it caused social exclusion, particularly for women and children.

EUGENIA GUTIERREZ RUIZ (Costa Rica) welcomed and expressed gratitude for the work and reports of all three Special Rapporteurs. Costa Rica welcomed in particular the report of the Special Rapporteur, Jorge Bustamante on the human rights of migrants and welcomed the necessary recommendations made on migrant children. The ideas presented in the report should be considered in all relevant human rights mechanisms. The needs of migrant children and refugees to have access to and the right to education were of particular importance for Costa Rica. Cooperation was one of the tools used by the Costa Rican Government to strengthen access to education for detained persons. The Government had already started to implement training activities, and in particular in the arts sector as a complimentary form of education for persons in detention centres. It was very important to consider cooperation, information sharing and best practices in this regard as made by the Special Rapporteur in his recommendations.

JUAN HOLGUIN (Ecuador) said the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants sought information from various sources, one of which was the resolutions arising from the Human Rights Council. Concerning resolution 9/5, on the human rights of migrants, this encouraged him to continue to consider means of overcoming the obstacles which were before the full and effective protection of the human rights of migrants. The report contained an interesting legal and political analysis of the situation in which a migrant child could find itself - left behind, on the move, or in the receiving country. The report also contained recommendations, and these were fairly general, fairly similar to those submitted by the Working Group on arbitrary detention. In his report, the Special Rapporteur had not referred to the recent European directive on migration, pursuant to which sanctions were established that could be applied to employers of irregular workers whose application could exacerbate the situation for those in danger. The Special Rapporteur should expand his report to cover the full spectrum of the mandate.

VEBJORN HEINES (Norway) said that the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights and transnational enterprises covered the State duty to protect. The point of departure was clear: they needed a more advanced and more coherent approach to governance at the national, regional and global level. As described in the report, both vertical and horizontal incoherence were widespread. There were, however, some positive developments aiming at addressing key legal and policy challenges. Norway believed the initiative of the Special Representative to engage Member States and conduct a survey of legal and policy developments was timely and useful and Norway would respond. In several parts of the report, the Special Representative addressed the issue of corporate-related human rights abuses in conflict situations. He underlined that all stakeholders wanted greater guidance on how to prevent corporate related abuse in conflict affected areas. Norway viewed this issue as very important and welcomed the Special Representative’s intention to work with home and host States to generate ideas about effective approaches and tools States could employ to prevent such abuses.

ERLINDA F. BASILIO (Philippines) thanked the three mandate-holders for their reports and presentations. The Philippines continued to support the important work of Mr. Bustamante, the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants, and welcomed him to the Second Global Forum on Migration and Development held last October in Manila, where he was also able to attend various civil society events. During all stages of the migration process, the rights of migrant children, regardless of their or their parents’ immigration status, must be fully respected and protected. Children who were unaccompanied or separated from their parents were particularly vulnerable to violations of their human rights. States had an obligation to ensure protection of all children during all stages of the migration process; taking into account the best interests of the child, and the right of the child to express his or her views in all matters affecting him or her, in accordance with the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Philippines commended the Special Rapporteur for citing the Recommended Principles and Guidelines on Human Rights and Human Trafficking developed by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, which was a tool for identifying, assisting and providing protection for child victims of trafficking and transnational organized crime.

IBRAHIM S. AL-ADOOFI (Yemen) said Yemen had been looking at the education of detainees - the current financial crisis would impact the enjoyment of human rights by all, but particularly in the least developed countries. Yemen had become integrated, and this had changed the face of the country radically. Children's school programmes had been adapted and improved, and the Government had focused on the situation of schools across the country, particularly in rural areas, and had encouraged parents to send their children to school, scientific and technical education, and the education of girls, as well as efforts to make education free. A national plan to increase the number of schools and improve their distribution across all areas, improving teacher capacity and others were ensured, in order to guarantee the right to education and access by citizens. This had led to an increase in the number of children in the primary and secondary levels, but a lot of challenges remained - illiteracy ran at 45 per cent and was even higher among girls and women.

TERRY CORMIER (Canada) said that even though the global economic crisis preoccupied both domestic and international political discussion, it was important to recognize that the business and human rights agenda had not taken a back seat to economic recovery. Indeed, it was clear that measures fostering responsible corporate conduct were more relevant than ever to strengthening the international human rights regime and ensuring that economic growth benefited all stakeholders. However, companies needed certainty and clarity when it came to the rules and guidelines they were expected to follow. In practical terms, what should companies take away from the Special Representative’s latest report? The business and human rights agenda had evolved considerably under the Special Representative’s tutelage, and while much work remained in making more precise the specific responsibility of Governments and business, the momentum and buy-in that the Special Representative had achieved was very promising. Could the Special Representative elaborate on the reaction he had received from relevant international bodies to his framework? In particular, did the Special Representative see any scope for cooperation in the future?

ANE MONEIRA (Portugal) reiterated Portugal’s appreciation for the Special Rapporteur on the right to education for all his work in the discharge of his mandate and for elaborating and presenting his report to the Council. This year again, Portugal would be presenting the draft resolution on the right to education. It followed up on the text adopted last year, focusing on the most significant recent developments in the area of education as well as on the issue the Special Rapporteur chose to examine this year: the right to education of persons in detention. In this connection, the report noted that “the imperative of security was a reason for limited opportunities for access to the Internet” in prisons. Portugal asked what measures could be recommended in order to reconcile such imperative with the need to provide detainees with education and training on such needed and fundamental skills as the use of new information technologies? Despite indicating obstacles and difficulties, the report also recognized the existence of “educational programmes of exceptional quality” for detainees, could examples of such programmes be provided, Portugal asked.

YANG XIGONING (China) said in the context of the global financial crisis, the efforts to continue the protection of economic and civil rights was an unprecedented challenge, and should require the attention of the international community as a whole. China appreciated the "protect, respect and remedy" framework proposed by the Special Rapporteur, which was of positive significance and merited the serious study of all countries concerned. Only through mutual cooperation was it possible to achieve the full protection and promotion of human rights. The Special Rapporteur on migrants was thanked for his report - migration flows in the context of globalisation had caused problems and opportunities, and the situation of children was a particular concern. The specific detailed conclusions and recommendations in this regard were taken note of, and merited consideration and adoption. Countries of origin and destination should protect these children without discrimination. Efforts should continue to strengthen international and regional cooperation, and combat organised crime. The Special Rapporteur should continue his study and come up with more feasible suggestions for countries of origin and destination. The integration of the public education system should be considered to facilitate the eventual release of detainees, and the Special Rapporteur on education should come up with practical suggestions on how to integrate education for detainees in countries with limited resources.


For use of the information media; not an official record


HRC09068E