COUNCIL EXTENDS MANDATES ON EXTRA-JUDICIAL KILLINGS, EDUCATION AND RIGHTS OF MIGRANTS
The Human Rights Council this afternoon adopted 10 resolutions in which it extended the mandates of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, the Special Rapporteur on the right to education, and the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants.
Other resolutions concerned International Albinism Awareness Day, the protection of the family, the promotion, protection and enjoyment of human rights on the Internet, arbitrary deprivation of nationality, elimination of violence against women, the regulation of civilian acquisition, possession and use of firearms, and the right to health.
The Council recommended that the General Assembly proclaim 13 June as International Albinism Awareness Day and requested the Office of the High Commissioner to keep it informed at its twenty-ninth session of the initiatives taken to raise awareness and promote the protection of the rights of persons with albinism.
In a resolution on the protection of the family, adopted by a vote of 26 in favour, 14 against and 6 abstentions, the Council decided to convene at its twenty-seventh session a panel discussion on the protection of the family to address the implementation of States’ obligations under relevant provisions of international human rights law.
The Council strongly condemned attacks on educational institutions, their students and staff and extended the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the right to education for a period of three years. In separate resolutions it extended the mandates of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions for three years, and the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants also for three years.
Concerning the promotion, protection and enjoyment of human rights on the Internet, the Council called upon all States to address security concerns on the Internet, ensure protection of freedom of expression and of association and other human rights online and stressed the importance of combatting advocacy of hatred that constituted incitement to discrimination or violence on the Internet.
In a resolution on human rights and arbitrary deprivation of nationality, the Council urged States to adopt and implement nationality legislation with a view to avoiding statelessness, and to ensure that all children were registered immediately after birth.
With regard to accelerating efforts to eliminate all forms of violence against women, the Council urged States to ensure women’s full, equal and effective participation in all fields and leadership at all levels of decision-making in the public and private sectors, and to promote and protect sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights of women.
In a resolution on human rights and the regulation of civilian acquisition, possession and use of firearms, adopted by a vote of 44 in favour, none against and three abstentions, the Council called upon all States to ensure that civilian acquisition, possession and use of firearms were effectively regulated.
The Council requested the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health to prepare a study on the theme “Sport and healthy lifestyles as contributing factors to the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health”, and to present it to the Human Rights Council at its thirty-second session.
Introducing texts were Somalia, Egypt, Sierra Leone, Sweden, Russia, Canada, Peru, Ecuador, Portugal, Brazil, and Mexico. Uruguay and China introduced amendments to resolutions.
Speaking in general comments were Saudi Arabia, China, United States, Ireland, Argentina, Estonia, Costa Rica, Montenegro, India, France on behalf of a group of States, and Mexico.
Speaking in explanations of the vote before or after the vote were Russia, China, Indonesia, Argentina, Saudi Arabia, United Kingdom, United States, Germany, France, Brazil, Chile, Ireland, Austria on behalf of the European Union, India, Viet Nam, Algeria, South Africa, and Italy on behalf of the European Union.
The Council will resume its work at 10 a.m. on Friday, 27 June to continue to take action on remaining draft resolutions and decisions before closing its twenty-sixth session.
Action on Resolutions under the Agenda Item on the Promotion and Protection of All Human Rights
Action on Resolution on International Albinism Awareness Day
In a resolution (A/HRC/26/L.7) on International Albinism Awareness Day, adopted without a vote, the Council recommends that the General Assembly proclaim 13 June as the International Albinism Awareness Day; invites Member States to provide the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights with information on the initiatives taken to promote and protect the human rights of persons with albinism; urges the human rights treaty bodies and special procedures of the Human Rights Council to continue to give attention, within their respective mandates, to the situation of persons with albinism; and requests the Office of the High Commissioner to keep the Human Rights Council informed at its twenty-ninth session of the initiatives taken to raise awareness and promote the protection of the rights of persons with albinism.
Somalia, introducing draft resolution L.7 as orally revised on the International Albinism Awareness Day, said that the resolution followed up on consensus texts adopted by the Council the previous year. Somalia thanked the delegations that had responded to the plight of persons with albinism. The draft resolution was primarily procedural and recommended that the General Assembly proclaim 13 June as the International Albinism Awareness Day, providing the international community with a platform to raise awareness on that pressing human rights issue and the importance of understanding the condition of albinism, with a view to addressing the discrimination, stigma and physical attacks they faced.
United States, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote on draft resolution L.7, joined the consensus on the resolution and noted the relevance of international instruments in addressing issues of stigma and violence affecting all persons with disabilities. Future discussions on how to prevent attacks against persons with albinism should address the root causes of discrimination against persons with disabilities.
Action on Resolution on the Protection of the Family
In a resolution (A/HRC/26/L.20/Rev.1) on the protection of the family, adopted with a vote of 26 in favour, 14 against and six abstentions, the Council decides to convene at its 27th session a panel discussion on the protection of the family to address the implementation of States’ obligations under relevant provisions of international human rights law; requests the High Commissioner for Human Rights to liaise with States and all stakeholders with a view to ensuring their participation in the panel discussion; and requests the High Commissioner to prepare a report on the panel discussion in the format of a summary, and to submit the report to the Council at its 28th session.
The result of the vote was as follows:
In favour (26): Algeria, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, China, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Ethiopia, Gabon, India, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Maldives, Morocco, Namibia, Pakistan, Philippines, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, South Africa, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela and Viet Nam.
Against (14): Austria, Chile, Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Montenegro, Republic of Korea, Romania, United Kingdom, and United States of America.
Abstentions (6): Argentina, Brazil, Costa Rica, Mexico, Peru, and The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.
Before the action on the resolution, the Council voted on a no-action motion on the resolution, accepting it by a vote of 22 in favour, 20 against and four abstentions.
Following this, Saudi Arabia withdrew amendment L.38 and called on the members of the Council to adopt the draft resolution L.20/Rev.1 with consensus.
Egypt, introducing draft resolution L.20/Rev.1 on the protection of the family, said the draft resolution coincided with the twentieth anniversary of the International Year of the Family and was intended to build on previous work. The Council should carry out its responsibility in addressing that important and often neglected matter. The draft resolution was a short and procedural text, aimed at allowing for an exchange of views, and exploring the great potential of the family in protecting and promoting human rights. Three rounds of informal consultations had been held and considerable efforts had been exerted to meet the demands of different delegations. It was hoped that the historic resolution would be adopted by consensus.
Sierra Leone, also introducing the draft resolution, said that the family represented the nucleus of society all around the world, and was the starting block for building communities. It was equally important for the advancement of a just, fair and free society. The importance of the family in addressing matters related to its members could not be ignored and families needed to be empowered. A panel discussion at the twenty-seventh session of the Council would offer a timely and valuable opportunity to share best practices about the family, policy making, and a platform to consider challenges to the promotion of the family and to best address States’ implementation of obligations.
Côte d’Ivoire, also introducing draft resolution L.20/Rev.1, said that it was pleased to submit the document on behalf of its many co-sponsors. Côte d’Ivoire’s commitment to that initiative derived from the Government’s concern for the family and the awareness that the family unit had been destroyed by conflict in many regions, and its reconstruction was a priority for the Government. Côte d’Ivoire had established a special unit for the family and agreed that it was important to discuss measures to strengthen and protect the family. Finally, Côte d’Ivoire called on the Council to adopt this resolution by consensus.
Uruguay, introducing draft amendment L.37 on behalf of a group of countries, recognized the importance of the family and thanked the main sponsors of draft resolution L.20 for including a reference to members on the family. Uruguay noted that often violations took place in the context of the family. Uruguay agreed that all members of the family should be protected in an environment conducive to the protection of rights without exception. However, Uruguay was alarmed by the fact that the draft resolution did not contain an explicit reference to the existence of a wide range of types of families as recognized by several international instruments, jurisprudence emerging from human rights bodies, and the United Nations. It was vital for the Council to address that issue in a comprehensive and inclusive way.
Russia, speaking on behalf of the core group of sponsors of the resolution, informed the Council that the proposed amendment L.37 had been suggested during the informal consultations and did not enjoy the necessary support among all Members States. Russia was of the view that the amendment carried no value added to the text and endangered the delicate balance forged around it. Russia would call for a no-action motion on proposed amendment L.37.
The President read out the appropriate provision from the Rules of Procedure on the no-action motion. The President then gave the floor to two countries supporting the no-action motion, and to two countries against it.
China said that it supported the no-action motion as proposed by Russia.
Indonesia said that it also supported the call for the no-action motion by Russia.
Argentina said that it objected to the no-action motion. The topic should be considered by the Council without procedural obstacles, and Argentina would vote against the no-action motion.
United States called on all delegations to oppose the no-action motion proposed by Russia, and to vote no.
The Council adopted the no-action motion on amendment L.37 with 22 votes in favour, 20 against, and 4 abstentions.
Saudi Arabia withdrew the amendment L.38, and called for adoption of the resolution by consensus.
United Kingdom, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that the United Kingdom had a long record of supporting open discussion in the Council and was a strong supporter of the rights of family members. The Universal Declaration emphasized the rights of individuals, rather than groups, and the United Kingdom would like to see this in the resolution. What constituted a family meant different things to different people and that was reflected in countries’ constitutions, legal systems and legal codes. All forms of family were valid and the Council should promote diversity and non-discrimination. The Council should be careful not to send the wrong message. For those reasons, the United Kingdom called for a vote on the draft resolution.
United States, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, voiced disappointment that the sponsors of the draft resolution had not been willing to recognize the diversity of families found around the world. Families played an important role in society, and while families retained fundamental values, they changed and adapted over time. The United States looked forward to discussions which would consider all types of loving families existing today, among others, those led by single-parents, same-sex parents, and other families that provided support and care for their members.
Germany, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that it gave great importance to family-related issues. Germany had significant concerns about the resolution, as the text failed to acknowledge that various forms of families existed around the world. Germany could not support the resolution and would vote no.
France, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, shared profound concern that the draft resolution did not take into account different forms of family. France attached great importance to family issues. France could not support the draft resolution in its current form.
Brazil, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, stressed the need to realize the objectives of the International Year of the Family and to implement concrete measures and approaches in dealing with family issues based on international human rights law. It understood that the purpose of the panel was to promote a discussion on ways to guarantee the rights of individuals to freely form, nurture and live in a family that was in accordance with his or her individual consent.
Chile, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, recognized the importance of families in society and the importance of ensuring that States granted protection to all types of families. Chile regretted that the amendment L.37 had not been accepted and that the draft resolution did not include any references to different types of families. The resolution failed to reflect that no static definition of family existed in international law and that there should be no discrimination against different types of families. Chile was convinced that such a fundamental principle of human rights should be dealt with in an inclusive way.
Ireland, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, attached great importance to family-related issues and recognised the importance of family members and care-givers. Families could provide an important framework for the promotion and protection of human rights. Ireland agreed on the need to develop policies to strengthen families. Those policies had to be inclusive in order to be successful and had to recognise that in different political and cultural systems, different forms of families existed. The draft resolution failed to take account of that fact, which was why Ireland would vote against the proposed text.
Austria, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote on behalf of European Union States members of the Council, shared the view of many in the Council concerning the contributions that families made to society and the need to strengthen their role. The draft resolution failed to recognise the diversity of family forms. For that reason, European Union members of the Council would vote against the draft resolution. Austria, speaking in its national capacity, was disappointed to vote against the resolution, which had failed to include previously agreed language on the family.
Argentina, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, considered the concept of the family from its broadest possible meaning and thought it encompassed the different forms that existed in all contexts. Argentina supported the progressive development of international human rights law. The protection and development of the family had and always would have the support of Argentina.
India, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said it was universally recognised that the family was the basic unit of society and should as such be strengthened. It was fitting that the Human Rights Council should discuss how to further the protection of the family, including by sharing best practices. The resolution was short and procedural, rightly leaving the space for each country to interpret their understanding of the family.
Viet Nam, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said it strongly supported the family as constituting the basic cell of society. Good families made good societies and good societies in turn facilitated better families. Viet Nam appreciated the efforts of the core group and all others. Arguments from both sides were acknowledged. There was room for all parties concerned to work together to narrow down the divisions. Viet Nam would vote in favour of this resolution.
Algeria, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that this resolution was in keeping with Algeria’s policies. The Government had established a Ministry for the protection of the family. This draft resolution promoted awareness concerning the importance of the family unit in society. In the context of the twentieth anniversary of the International Year of the Family, this was the first initiative of its kind to be taken by the Council and for these reasons, Algeria would vote in favour.
Saudi Arabia, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that despite different international instruments calling for the protection of the family, none had previously been adopted by the Council, despite the importance of the family environment to fulfil many rights, including those of children. On these grounds, Saudi Arabia would vote in favour of the draft.
Action on Resolution on the Mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions
In a resolution (A/HRC/26/L.23) on the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, adopted without a vote, the Council strongly condemns all extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, in all their forms, that continue to take place throughout the world; demands that all States ensure that the practice of extrajudicial, summary or
arbitrary executions is brought to an end; requests the Special Rapporteur, in carrying out his or her mandate, to continue to examine situations of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary
executions in all circumstances and for whatever reason, and to submit his or her findings on an annual basis, and to continue to monitor the implementation of existing international standards
on safeguards and restrictions relating to the imposition of capital punishment; urges States to cooperate with and assist the Special Rapporteur, ensure appropriate follow-up to the recommendations and conclusions of
the Special Rapporteur and favourably consider requests for visits to their countries; and decides to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions for three years.
Sweden, introducing draft resolution L.23 on the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, said it was a long-standing mandate, pre-dating the Human Rights Council, focusing on the most fundamental right, the right to life. The practice of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions represented a flagrant violation of the inherent right to life. The continued occurrence of this practice pointed to the need for an extension of the mandate for a further three years. Sweden invited the Council to adopt the draft resolution by consensus.
Saudi Arabia, in a general comment, emphasised its cooperation in the Council in order to strengthen all efforts to promote human rights. Saudi Arabia agreed with the co-sponsors on the importance of rejecting extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. Saudi Arabia supported the draft and wished to see it adopted by consensus. However, it did not accept the comments of the Human Rights Committee regarding the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Optional Protocol on the Death Penalty, opening the door for countries applying capital punishment to not use the penalty.
Action on Resolution on the Promotion, Protection and Enjoyment of Human Rights on the Internet
In a resolution (A/HRC/26/L.24) on the promotion, protection and enjoyment of human rights on the Internet, adopted without a vote as orally revised, the Council affirms that the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online, in particular freedom of expression, which is applicable regardless of frontiers and through any media of one’s choice; calls upon all States to promote and facilitate access to the Internet, and international cooperation aimed at the development of media and information and communication facilities and technologies in all countries; calls upon all States to address security concerns on the Internet in accordance with their international human rights obligations to ensure protection of freedom of expression, freedom of association, privacy and other human rights online; stresses the importance of combatting advocacy of hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination or violence on the Internet; also calls upon all States to consider formulating, through transparent and inclusive processes, with all stakeholders and adopting national Internet-related public policies that have the objective of universal access and enjoyment of human rights at their core; and calls upon all States to promote digital literacy and facilitate access to information on the Internet and encourages the special procedures to take these issues into account within their existing mandates, as applicable.
Before adopting the resolution, the Council rejected an oral amendment to draft resolution L.24 as introduced by China by a vote of 15 in favour, 28 against and four abstentions.
Denmark, introducing draft resolution L.24 as orally revised on behalf of the core group concerning the promotion, protection and enjoyment of human rights on the Internet, said that this draft resolution built upon resolution 20/8, adopted by consensus two years ago, which emphasised that all human rights applied online as well as offline. In this resolution, the main sponsors and co-sponsors had agreed to avoid listing issues in order to achieve a balanced text. Denmark hoped that this follow-up resolution could be adopted by consensus, this had been the spirit under which consultations had been conducted.
China, speaking in a general comment, introduced some oral amendments to the draft resolution on behalf of a group of countries. Since its appearance, the Internet had played an important role and offered opportunities for the promotion and protection of human rights. However it also faced important challenges, including those related to religious hatred, religious discrimination and incitement to violence. China regretted that the revised text did not reflect their concerns expressed during the consultations, and was therefore presenting an oral amendment in order to introduce these concerns, using wording from relevant human rights instruments. China believed that this language was in line with the objective of the draft resolution and that it would make it more balanced.
United States, in a general comment, said that the idea that freedoms and rights were the same online as offline were at the core of the text of the Internet freedom resolution and all its predecessors. It had always been a consensus resolution and the United States regretted that the sponsors of the amendment appeared to be otherwise inclined. The amendment would create loop-holes. The United States was not able to accept the proposal. It would vote no to the amendment.
Ireland, in a general comment, said this was an important resolution that affirmed that the same rights that applied offline had to apply online. Ireland did not support the amendment as proposed by China. It would vote no to the amendment.
Argentina, in a general comment, said it valued the efforts made by the trans-regional group of main co-sponsors to take on board all concerns during the negotiations. Argentina could not support the amendment.
Estonia, in a general comment, said it was of the view that the substance of the oral amendment put forward by China was already covered and therefore it could not support the amendment.
Costa Rica, in a general comment, said that it was essential to build consensus and bridges among different delegations in the Human Rights Council. However, as the proposed oral amendment was non-exhaustive and included an incomplete list, Costa Rica would vote against it.
China, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, regretted that the Council had not adopted the amendment proposed by China. Fighting against negative factors on the Internet could effectively protect all kinds of human rights, including freedom of expression.
South Africa, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, stated that the draft resolution presented serious challenges to South Africa, as it undermined pertinent provisions of international human rights law, such as those on racial and ethnic hatred. That was a glaring omission. South Africa would disassociate itself from the resolution.
Viet Nam, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, supported the efforts to ensure all human rights and fundamental freedoms of all people, which was in line with the spirit of the proposed text. The resolution would be more comprehensive if it addressed more comprehensively the negative effects of the Internet in its various forms. Nonetheless, Viet Nam supported the resolution.
Action on Resolution on Human Rights and Arbitrary Deprivation of Nationality
In a resolution (A/HRC/26/L.25) on human rights and arbitrary deprivation of nationality, adopted without a vote, the Council reaffirms that the right to a nationality of every human person is a fundamental human right; reiterates that the prevention and reduction of statelessness are primarily the responsibility of States; urges all States to adopt and implement nationality legislation with a view to avoiding statelessness; expresses its concern that persons arbitrarily deprived of nationality may be affected by poverty, social exclusion and limited legal capacity; reaffirms that every child has the right to acquire a nationality; urges all States to prevent statelessness through legislative and other measures aimed at ensuring that all children are registered immediately after birth; also urges States in regulating loss and deprivation of nationality to ensure incorporation in their domestic law of safeguards to prevent statelessness, and to refrain from automatically extending the loss or deprivation of nationality to a person’s dependents; and requests the Secretary-General, in consultation with States, United Nations agencies and other relevant stakeholders, to prepare a report on the impact that arbitrary deprivation of nationality has on the enjoyment of the rights of children concerned.
Russia, introducing draft resolution L.25 on human rights and arbitrary deprivation of nationality, highlighted the obligation by States to respect the rights of everyone without limitation. Some States circumvented this obligation through the deprivation of nationality against some persons or groups, transforming persons into foreigners within their own countries and depriving them of their rights. Some such situations remained unresolved today, leading to statelessness of many generations, including their children and grandchildren. The right of every individual to nationality was enshrined in international human rights laws. Children affected by the deprivation of their nationality were in a particularly vulnerable situation, including those whose parents of guardians had become stateless. Recalling that this year was the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Convention of the Rights of the Child, the resolution called for a report on the human rights consequences of deprivation of nationality as well as a review of existing legislation. Open consultations had been carried out and the vast majority of comments made had been taken into account and Russia thanked delegations for their constructive approach, hoping that this resolution would be adopted by consensus.
European Union, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, took note of the draft resolution and recognised the importance of article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; in view of the importance that the European Union attached to the prevention of arbitrary deprivation of nationality, the European Union would have liked to see a more comprehensive approach. The European Union called on all States, including the main sponsor, not to take any steps that would impose discriminatory measures on persons who chose to retain their nationality in the aftermath of an illegal annexation of territory by a foreign State.
Action on Resolution on Accelerating Efforts to Eliminate All Forms of Violence against Women
In a resolution (A/HRC/26/L.26/Rev.1) on accelerating efforts to eliminate all forms of violence against women, adopted without a vote, the Council strongly condemns all acts of violence against women and girls, and calls for the prevention and elimination of all forms of gender-based violence in the family, within the general community and where perpetrated or condoned by the State; urges States and all segments of society to take meaningful steps to address the harmful attitudes, customs, practices, stereotypes and unequal power relations; calls upon States to develop or strengthen comprehensive national women-centred multisectoral responses involving relevant authorities in sectors such as justice, health, social services, education and child protection services; urges States to take effective steps to ensure the full and equal participation of women and men in all spheres of political life, and take measures to ensure women’s full, equal and effective participation in all fields and leadership at all levels of decision-making in the public and private sectors; urges States to promote women’s full participation in the formal economy, in particular in economic decision-making, and their equal access to full and productive employment, decent work and social protection, and to empower women in the informal economy; asks that States promote and protect sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights of women; and affirms the need for States to collect thorough and accurate disagregated data and statistics on violence against women and girls.
Canada, presenting draft resolution L.26 on accelerating efforts to eliminate all forms of violence against women, said that violence against women remained tragic, persistent and widespread. One in three women would be subject to physical or sexual violence in their lifetime, as it cut across boundaries of age, race, culture, religion, wealth and geography. Violence against women was not only an abuse of human rights, but also a factor affecting sustainable development, notably in the context of the evolving discussion on the post-2015 agenda. The draft text condemned violence, called for accountability for perpetrators and urged all segments of society to take meaningful steps to combat violence against women and girls at all levels and in all settings.
Italy, speaking on behalf of the European Union in a general comment, welcomed that the draft resolution stressed that customs, traditions or religious considerations should not be invoked by States to avoid their obligations with respect to the elimination of all forms of violence against women and girls. States were encouraged to include a target for ending all forms of violence against women and girls, a stand-alone goal on gender equality in the post 2015-development agenda. It was regrettable that the draft resolution did not mention the need for a target to eliminate harmful practices such as female genital mutilation and child, early and forced marriage.
United States, in a general comment, said that for women and girls to take full advantage in political and economic spheres, they had to be able to live free from fear of violence. States had the duty to respect all human rights and freedoms. The United States welcomed the specific reference to indigenous women and girls and those with disabilities. Violence seriously jeopardized the mental and physical health of women, often including sexual and reproductive rights of women and girls. Reproductive rights rested on the recognition of the basic right of all couples and individuals to decide freely on their procreation.
Montenegro, speaking in a general comment, supported efforts to protect women and believed that violence constituted a major hindrance to women’s empowerment. Montenegro thanked Canada for strengthening the coalition to advance the rights of women in the Council. Montenegro highlighted the importance of recognising the factors contributing to violence against women and limitations to participate in society, as well as political and economic empowerment. States should commit to combat all forms of violence against women, support their reproductive rights and include a gender perspective in the post-2015 development agenda.
India, speaking in a general comment, supported the draft resolution under consideration as it sought to accelerate efforts to combat violence against women. India supported the laudable objectives of the resolution, as well as the need to work together to eliminate violence against women. India supported the consensus on this resolution, without detriment to its capacity to decide on its position regarding other initiatives. India believed that the best platform for seeking universal endorsement for these external initiatives were bodies with universal membership, such as the General Assembly.
South Africa, speaking in a general comment, said that it attached great importance to the empowerment and the elimination of violence against women. It was important to move beyond concern and to promote tangible actions. South Africa had previously called on Canada to promote tangible actions, rather than focusing on the well-known and well documented scourges suffered by women, particularly in the developing world. The ongoing African Union Summit had decided to focus on food security and the revitalisation of the agricultural sector, which as expected would have a positive impact on women empowerment; it was these kinds of measures that might have a real effect on the ground. South Africa called on Canada to review its approach.
France, speaking on behalf of a group of States in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that the draft resolution recognized that violence against women was a violation, abuse or impairment of human rights, and consistently used the terminology “gender equality” throughout the text. France was disappointed that the current language related to women’s sexual and reproductive health did not meet standards achieved over the previous years in the Commission on the Status of Women. That was why the group of States had decided to refrain from co-sponsoring the draft resolution, but would join the consensus.
Action on Resolution on Human Rights and the Regulation of Civilian Acquisition, Possession and Use of Firearms
In a resolution (A/HRC/26/L.27) on human rights and the regulation of civilian acquisition, possession and use of firearms, adopted by a vote of 44 in favour, none against and three abstentions, the Council expresses its deep concern at the fact that hundreds of thousands of human beings of all ages around the world have lost their lives or suffered injuries and psychological harm by the misuse of firearms by civilians, thus having their human rights, in particular their right to life and security of person, negatively affected; calls upon all States to take appropriate legislative, administrative and other measures, consistent with international human rights law and their constitutional frameworks, in order to ensure that civilian acquisition, possession and use of firearms are effectively regulated; and invites all relevant special procedures, commissions of inquiry and human rights treaty bodies to bear in mind the present resolution within the framework of their respective mandates.
The result of the vote was as follows:
In favour (44): Algeria, Argentina, Austria, Benin, Botswana, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Chile, China, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Czech Republic, Estonia, Ethiopia, France, Gabon, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Maldives, Mexico, Montenegro, Morocco, Namibia, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, South Africa, United Kingdom, Venezuela and Viet Nam.
Against (0):
Abstentions (3): The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, United Arab Emirates, and United States of America.
Peru, introducing draft resolution L.27 on human rights and the regulation of civilian acquisition, possession and use of firearms, said it aimed at protecting life and overall security, which was a basic human rights. Every year, hundreds of thousands of persons were victims of firearms, which was why the Council had to appeal to all States to take all necessary measures, consistent with international legal instruments and their constitutions, to ensure that the use of firearms was properly and effectively regulated. Peru was convinced that such steps would give protection to the right of life and security of person. Peru hoped that the draft resolution, which represented a tribute to all victims of firearms around the world, would be adopted without a vote.
Ecuador, also introducing the draft resolution, said that it always rejected force and the use of force and embraced disarmament. Ecuador was deeply concerned over the access of civilians to firearms and the number of casualties from firearms globally. Misuse of firearms was a problem in many developing countries, due to the weakness of their law-enforcement institutions, but there had recently been numerous crimes against populations at large in developed countries as well. Women were particularly vulnerable to becoming victims of firearms as a result of gender-based violence.
United States, speaking in a general comment, said that the United States would regretfully call for a vote and abstain. The United States had supported resolutions concerning addressing the situation of victims and believed that regulatory actions could prevent the illegal use of firearms. The United States, however, did not believe that States’ regulation of this strictly domestic issue was a relevant international subject and did not regard the domestic actions contained in the resolution as relevant human rights obligations. The United States saw these measures as falling within the sovereign responsibilities of States towards their citizens in pursuance of their own constitutional and judicial frameworks. The United States did not interpret this resolution as giving international organizations and their representatives a say in these domestic issues.
Mexico, speaking in a general comment on behalf of Colombia and Mexico, said that that the inclusion of disarmament themes in the Council required reflection. The resolution lacked fundamental elements required to tackle the issue and which must be addressed before taking measures to protect civilians affected by the traffic of small arms and light weapons. The resolution should have used the internationally accepted term of “small arms and light weapons, munitions and explosives”. Several international studies had shown that the main issue concerning civilians’ use concerned the illicit traffic and any resolution that did not address this aspect remained superfluous. Besides the acquisition and possession, the illegal production was another problem not mentioned in the resolution. Mexico also expressed concerns about the lack of references to the Arms Trade Treaty and the United Nations Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat, and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects.
Action on Resolution on the Right to Education
In a resolution (A/HRC/26/L.28) on the right to education: follow-up to Human Rights Council resolution 8/4, adopted without a vote, the Council calls upon all States to take all measures to implement Human Rights Council resolutions on the right to education with a view to ensuring the full realization of this right for all; urges all States to give full effect to the right to education by, inter alia, developing and applying assessment systems that are in compliance with international human rights law; calls upon all relevant stakeholders urgently to increase their efforts to accelerate progress towards attaining education goals set for 2015; strongly condemns attacks, including terrorist attacks, on educational institutions as such, their students and staff, and recognizes the negative impact that such attacks can have on the realization of the right to education, in particular of girls; decides to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the right to education for a period of three years; and requests the Special Rapporteur to take fully into account all provisions of Human Rights Council resolutions on the right to education.
Portugal, introducing draft resolution L. 27 on the right to education, said that it extended the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the right to education, requesting all States to cooperate fully with him. The text also urged all States to give full effect to the right to education, reflecting the most recent developments in the area in the last 12 months. It placed particular emphasis on the importance of developing and applying holistic and comprehensive assessment systems which promoted the realization of human rights and helped ensure the quality of education. The draft resolution also expressed deep concern at the fact that according to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, none of the “Education for All” goals would be achieved globally by 2013. It called upon all relevant stakeholders urgently to increase their efforts to accelerate progress towards attaining education goals set for 2015. In recent times, the world had witnessed shocking accounts of situations in which children, in particular girls, had been brutally targeted simply for attending school and wanting to learn. The draft resolution strongly condemned all such attacks, which were testimony of the work that remained to be done to ensure that the right to education was a reality for all persons everywhere.
Action on Resolution on the Right of Everyone to the Highest Standard of Physical and Mental Health
In a resolution (A/HRC/26/L.29) on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, adopted without a vote as orally revised, the Council calls upon States to promote physical activity and sport among all segments of their population; also calls upon States to use sport and major sporting events as an opportunity to promote human rights and strengthen universal respect for them; encourages the international community to support efforts, particularly in developing countries, through international cooperation, to promote sport as a tool to enhance well-being and healthy lifestyles for all; calls upon the international community to continue to assist developing countries in promoting the full realization of the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health; requests the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health to prepare a study on the theme “Sport and healthy lifestyles as contributing factors to the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health”, and to present it to the Human Rights Council at its 32nd session.
Brazil, introducing draft resolution L.29, said that Brazil had proposed the establishment of the mandate on the right to health at the former Commission on Human Rights. The appointed Special Rapporteurs had made significant contributions in that regard and should be thanked for their work. The promotion of the right to health was at the top of Brazil’s political agenda. As a universal language for development and peace, sport also had a huge potential to contribute to the promotion of health, including in preventing non-communicable diseases. A study on that matter would be prepared by the Special Rapporteur and presented to the Council at its thirty-second session. Brazil introduced oral amendments to the text.
Action on Resolution on the Mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants
In a resolution (A/HRC/26/L.31) on the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants, adopted without a vote, the Council decides to extend for a period of three years the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants; requests the Special Rapporteur to take into consideration relevant human rights instruments of the United Nations to promote and protect the human rights of migrants; also requests the Special Rapporteur to request, receive and exchange information on violations of the human rights of migrants from Governments and all other relevant stakeholders; further requests the Special Rapporteur, as part of his or her activities, to continue his or her programme of visits, and to take into account the bilateral, regional and international initiatives that address issues relating to the effective protection of human rights of migrants; and encourages Governments to cooperate fully with the Special Rapporteur in the performance of the tasks and duties mandated.
Mexico, introducing draft resolution L.31 on the human rights of migrants, said that it sought to reaffirm the importance of the promotion and protection of the human rights of migrants in a multilateral context of cooperation, and extended the mandate by three years. The mandate of the Special Rapporteur did not change. The Special Rapporteur had the task of examining the means with which existing barriers to the full and effective protection of the human rights of migrants could be overcome, and to formulate recommendations to prevent and address violations of the rights of migrants. Mexico appealed to Members of the Council to adopt the resolution by consensus.
For use of the information media; not an official record
HRC14/091E