HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL HOLDS INTERACTIVE DIALOGUE ON PHYSICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH AND ON INTERNATIONAL SOLIDARITY

The Human Rights Council in its midday meeting held a clustered interactive dialogue with Dainius Puras, Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, and Virginia Dandan, the Independent Expert on human rights and international solidarity.

Mr. Puras highlighted that mental health was neglected around the world. In order to address the need for mental health care and support, the global burden of obstacles needed to be examined. Obstacles included the dominance of the biomedical paradigm, and the biased use of evidence in mental health. Power and decision-making was concentrated in the hands of biomedical gatekeepers, and that contributed toward maintaining the stigma. He spoke about his visits to Algeria, Croatia and Indonesia.

Ms. Dandan said she was presenting two reports, one that chronicled the history of the efforts of her mandate culminating in the draft Declaration on the Right to International Solidarity, and another one on her country visit to Norway in September of last year. After presenting the draft Declaration, she highlighted that it might be tempting to question the relevance of such a document at a time of rising nationalism around the world. However, recent events had truly highlighted the need for this document and shown that a human rights-based vision of international solidarity could create an alternative narrative to the current prominent view of globalization as a harmful and entirely negative force.

Algeria, Croatia and Norway spoke as concerned countries.

During the discussion on physical and mental health, a number of delegates expressed concerns on the lack of consideration given to mental health compared to physical health. Speakers outlined the urgent need to draw paths in order to address the stigma and prejudices in that domain.

On human rights and international solidarity, speakers stated that the draft Declaration that had been presented could help address many modern-day challenges, including migrant crisis, terrorism, climate change and poverty. However, for others, doubts remained that the principle of international solidarity could be effectively translated into the language of human rights standards.

Speaking during the discussion were: El Salvador, Pakistan, Tunisia, Malaysia, Djibouti, Libya, Maldives, Cuba, Belgium, Spain, Togo, Australia, Philippines, United States, Sudan, Ethiopia, Japan, Pakistan, Kuwait, France, Venezuela, China, Egypt, Afghanistan, South Africa, Iran, Israel, Tunisia, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Iraq, Luxembourg, Indonesia, Bangladesh, State of Palestine, Côte d’Ivoire, Lithuania and Botswana. The World Health Organization also took the floor.

The following civil society organizations also spoke: Allied Rainbow Communities International, Americans for Democracy and Human Rights in Bahrain, Colombian Commission of Jurists, Centre for Reproductive Rights, Alliance Defending Freedom, Centre Europe – Tiers Monde, Make Mothers Matter, Action Canada for Population and Development, Association pour l’Intégration et le Développement Durable au Burundi, Centre Independent de Recherches et d’Initiatives pour le Dialogue, Associazione Comunità Papa Giovani XXIII and Verein Sudwind Entwicklungspolitik.
At 5 p.m., the Council will hold an interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the rights to peaceful assembly and association and the Special Rapporteur on the right to education.

Documentation

The Council has before it the Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health (A/HRC/35/21).

The Council has before it an addendum to the Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health - mission to Algeria (A/HRC/35/21/Add.1).

The Council has before it an addendum to the Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health - mission to Croatia (A/HRC/35/21/Add.2).

The Council has before it the Report of the Independent Expert on human rights and international solidarity (A/HRC/35/35).

The Council has before it an addendum to the Report of the Independent Expert on human rights and international solidarity - mission to Norway (A/HRC/35/35/Add.1).

Statement by the Special Rapporteur on the Right of Everyone to the Enjoyment of the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health

DAINIUS PURAS, Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, said that his report complemented the report of the High Commissioner and he would be presenting reports on country visits. There was no health without mental health, which was neglected around the world. In order to address the need for mental health care and support, the global burden of obstacles needed to be examined. Obstacles included the dominance of the biomedical paradigm, and the biased use of evidence in mental health. The overreliance on the biomedical paradigm, including the excessive use of psychotropic medicines, was a failure. Power and decision-making was concentrated in the hands of biomedical gatekeepers, and that contributed toward maintaining the stigma. The biased use of evidence had tainted knowledge about mental health. An example was telling people with mild and moderate depressions that they should take medicines. The evolving normative framework around mental health required a paradigm shift away from the dominance of the biomedical paradigm. Low cost, effective options were possible and being used around the world today, he said, noting that he had seen some of those good practices in action during his country visit to Croatia. The global state of mental health was not a crisis of chemical imbalances, but a crisis of power imbalances that should not be managed as a crisis of individuals’ conditions, but as a crisis of societal obstacles.

Turning to his country visits, he noted that he had gone to Algeria, Croatia and Indonesia since he last reported to the Council, and would present reports on the first two countries today. In Algeria, considerable progress had been made with regard to the realization of the right to health, with important achievements regarding the expansion of primary care. But a number of challenges remained, such as high maternal and neonatal mortality and morbidity rates. Regarding people living with HIV/AIDS in Algeria, key populations faced serious barriers to the enjoyment of the right to health.

Croatia had made significant advances towards the progressive realization of the right to health, which should be promoted and protected through the enjoyment of the underlying and social determinants of health. Croatia should continue to promote and strengthen primary health care, strengthening primary level capacity for early intervention services for children, with a family-centred approach. Existing challenges for the health system included long waiting lists, access to maternity hospitals, access to and use of contraceptives, unmet needs for family planning, and the prevalence of conscience-based refusals to abortion. In the context of the ongoing refugee crisis response, Croatia should ensure access by humanitarian organizations to all migrants in need. In conclusion, he said that his intention in the next few years was to facilitate a dialogue amongst key stakeholders on how the right to health was at stake within the existing mental health paradigm and how rights-based change was possible.

Statement by the Independent Expert on Human Rights and International Solidarity

VIRGINIA DANDAN, Independent Expert on human rights and international solidarity, said she would present two reports, one that chronicled the history of the efforts of her mandate culminating in the draft Declaration on the Right to International Solidarity, and another one on her country visit to Norway in September of last year.

Since its establishment in 2005, this mandate had sought to promote human rights and international solidarity around the world, she recalled. Its primary focus had been conducting the research and outreach necessary to provide a framework for the right to international solidarity. Through a process of research, consultations with experts, States, civil society and others, the Independent Expert had developed a proposed draft Declaration on the Right of Peoples and Individuals to International Solidarity, submitted to the Council in 2014. After regional consultations and experts meetings were held over the course of 2015 and 2016, the final draft Declaration on the Right to International Solidarity was elaborated. Turning to the content of the draft Declaration, Ms. Dandan recalled that the preamble provided a solid context for the draft Declaration, situating it within the full range of international law, most notably the United Nations Charter, but also including international human rights law, international humanitarian and refugee law, and climate change law.

Ms. Dandan said Article 1 defined international solidarity as “the expression of a spirit of unity among individuals, peoples, purposes and actions and the recognition of different needs and rights to achieve common goals”. This definition sought to emphasize the primacy of human rights, while recognizing that the principle of international solidarity was broad in nature. The Independent Expert highlighted that it might be tempting to question the relevance of such a draft Declaration at a time of rising nationalism around the world. However, recent events had truly highlighted the need for this document and shown that a human rights-based vision of international solidarity could create an alternative narrative to the current prominent view of globalization as a harmful and entirely negative force.

Turning to her visit to Norway in September 2016, Ms. Dandan said she had paid particular attention to Norway’s integration of a human rights based approach to development cooperation and foreign policy in general. Stressing the same idea, she recalled that in its Universal Periodic Review, Norway had underlined that international human rights guided Norwegian foreign policy. The Government was further committed to human rights education and to combatting gender-based violence. Norway’s policy also emphasized attention to vulnerable groups. Finally, she commended Norway for its commitment to implementing a human rights-based approach to development cooperation while upholding the principles of united aid, local ownership and partnership. She urged Norway to continue to work with all stakeholders to evaluate and monitor its human rights-based approach in every domain in order to deepen its effectiveness.

Statements by Concerned Countries

Algeria, speaking as a concerned country, reminded that the Special Rapporteur on the right to health had met with all the stakeholders in the country. The Government was mobilized to meet the noted challenges. Health was a constitutional right and healthcare was free and universal in Algeria. It was also extended to non-nationals. There was an increasingly large private healthcare sector, in addition to the State sector, which was the primary source of healthcare. Child mortality figures had decreased considerably in the country. As for combatting AIDS, Algeria was part of those countries with a low epidemiological prevalence. Primary healthcare centres had been created in the country and public healthcare insurance coverage was wide. The country’s medicines policy was focused on generic medicines.

Croatia, speaking as a concerned country, reiterated its commitment to upholding and protecting human rights, as well as to cooperation with Special Procedures mandate holders. The Government of Croatia was aware that the Special Rapporteur’s mandate was not limited simply to the provision of medicines and healthcare services. Nevertheless, the Special Rapporteur should stay within the limits of his mandate. Some oral and written information had not been correctly reflected in his report. Thus, the Government had submitted an addendum with more precise information and clarifications. At the same time, the Government saw the visit by the Special Rapporteur as an opportunity to improve its healthcare policies.

Norway, speaking as a concerned country, thanked the Special Rapporteur for her visit, noting that Norway had benefited from her knowledge. Norway had been challenged on how to measure the effect of development cooperation. The realization of human rights was an end in itself, and it was also fundamental for lasting peace and development. The challenge for all was to go from rhetoric to concrete action that made human rights relevant for decision-makers. The international community needed to recognize and uphold the dignity of every human being. Since the visit of the Independent Expert, the Norwegian Government had presented a new white paper on the topic, addressing forced migration, poverty and climate change, among other issues. It was a framework for addressing human rights for all. Stakeholders were responsible for the realization of the Sustainable Development Goals.

Interactive Dialogue

El Salvador, speaking on behalf of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, reiterated the right of everyone to the highest possible standard of health, and welcomed the Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development, including its third target. International cooperation in the area of health was crucial. Pakistan, speaking on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, said the right to mental health needed to be given attention, and supportive family structures could help in promoting an environment that encouraged better mental health. The Special Rapporteur was invited to elaborate on a rights-based approach. Tunisia, speaking on behalf of the African Group, noted that there was no health without mental health, and that the Charter of the African Union recognized the right to health.

European Union asked the Special Rapporteur about best practices to institutional care for persons with mental health issues. It expressed doubt that the principle of international solidarity could be meaningfully translated into the language of human rights standards. Portugal, speaking on behalf of a group of countries, expressed their commitment to address all relevant human rights challenges in the context of mental health, and reiterated their readiness to take a different path to address the stigma and prejudices in that domain. El Salvador underlined that a human rights perspective should be applied to public policies in the sector of healthcare, particularly when it came to mental health. It shared the view that a declaration on international solidarity was a powerful instrument to address poverty, inequality and climate change issues.

Holy See said that international solidarity could address many modern-day challenges. Solidarity should become a default attitude in international relations; it did not endanger State sovereignty because it was a moral value. Sierra Leone noted that improving access to public health and developing strategies to that effect, and establishing a holistic framework adapted to the needs of mentally ill, would contribute to the fight against stigma associated with mental health. Benin emphasized the need for strong international cooperation in order to improve healthcare for mental illnesses. International solidarity should be enshrined as a right at the international level.

Malaysia said the right to mental health was closely connected to overall well-being. Malaysia had adopted strategies in 2001 and 2010 in order to progressively address matters related to the realization of mental health and provide a necessary framework governing psychiatric services. Malaysia asked if the Special Rapporteur could elaborate on the gender perspective of the realization of the right to mental health. Djibouti shared the view that mental health had been given too little attention although it was deeply enshrined in the framework of the 2030 Agenda. There was a need to develop an inclusive participatory dialogue on this issue, including medical staff. Djibouti highlighted the immediate need to address gender violence and provide access to reproductive help in the country. Social obstacles to access mental health services needed to be removed. Libya said it was convinced that when the mind was healthy, the body was healthy too. Health services had been gravely damaged due to the political crisis in the country. Libya called for international assistance in order to provide normal access to health services for people suffering from mental diseases.

Maldives said that as a small island State, it faced challenges in the equal provision of mental health services on its territory. Several national goals had been adopted in order to enhance this access and eradicate discrepancies. A national health mechanism was introduced in 2012 and it stressed the right to mental health. Cuba welcomed the effort of the Independent Expert on strengthening the right to international solidarity that was a starting point to address many global challenges, including poverty. Cuba had sent an invitation to the Independent Expert and was waiting for a response. Cuba agreed that mental health had not been given sufficient attention compared to physical health and highlighted that the topic needed to be strongly followed-up. Belgium said it attached great importance to mental health in the framework of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Belgium expressed concern that mental health did not enjoy parity with physical health. More efforts should be made by all stakeholders in order to integrate mental health in primary and general health care.

Spain thanked Ms. Dandan for the results of her work. Spain also supported the results of the report by Mr. Puras, asking if he had been able to raise awareness of good practices about certain groups that did not enjoy their full health. Togo thanked the Independent Expert on solidarity for her report, and also thanked the Special Rapporteur on health for devoting his report to mental health, which was an important priority for the Government of Togo. In the current international context, a declaration on the right to international solidarity would be the right approach. Australia said it was committed to people of all ages receiving the treatment and support they needed. Australia would implement a renewed approach to suicide prevention, which would test and support improved service integration, and asked the Special Rapporteur for his views on effective strategies for preventing suicide.

Philippines noted with appreciation the report on health, and said that in the Philippines, a relentless war was being waged on drugs that caused social and family disruption. United States appreciated the Special Rapporteur’s focus on mental health and behavioural well-being, and expressed concern at the shortage of mental health professionals that many societies faced all over the world. Mr. Puras was asked how States could better integrate mental health care and services into primary care and community services. Sudan praised the report’s recommendations that health should be a priority for the international community, noting that Sudan had increased the number of hospitals and pharmacies. Work on issues of international solidarity should be continued.

Ethiopia reminded that mental health services for persons with psychosocial disabilities had been neglected for decades. Those services should be a priority within the 2030 Development Agenda. Japan noted that the Council should play an active role in addressing discrimination based on medical conditions and stigmatization, adding that the Special Rapporteur should also collaborate with the Special Rapporteur on the rights of persons with disabilities. Pakistan stated that the highest standard of physical and psychological health had a positive impact on other human rights. The 2030 Development Agenda provided a good framework for international cooperation in that respect. Kuwait voiced grave concern over the protection of mental health patients in poor countries, underlining the importance of international cooperation in that respect. At the national level, Kuwait had made efforts to supply hospitals with modern equipment.

Remarks by the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Health

DAINIUS PURAS, Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, thanked all the concerned countries for their fruitful participation in the dialogue. He expressed hope that mental health was now out of the shadows and that the international community was ready to recognize mental health as a key priority. The path to effective recognition, particularly at the national level, was harder, he acknowledged. Many decision-makers in health services were still reluctant to provide due information to patients. He expressed satisfaction that methods such as lobotomy had been recognized as violations of human rights. The report aimed at learning from such mistakes made in the past, remembering that patients should be empowered and deserved dignity. He highlighted the particular situation of children who suffered from mental health and who deserved equal treatment and respect for their rights. There was a need to review discriminatory legislation that was still in vigour so that patients were not considered as hopeless cases or people apart. Finally, he raised the issue of suicides, highlighting that 800,000 people died of suicide every year globally. Suicide could not be addressed via a medical way but through social means, he noted.

Interactive Dialogue

France underlined that healthcare for mental illnesses remained insufficient. The fragility of persons with mental health problems remained problematic. In that respect, France gave particular attention to prevention. Venezuela stated that it focused on children’s right to fully enjoy their right to health, as well as on the right of indigenous peoples to use traditional medicines. As for international solidarity, the draft Declaration would be a powerful tool to deal with structural inequality, poverty and climate change. China stressed that human and financial resources for mental health issues did not correspond to the number of persons with mental health problems. China looked forward to the discussion on the draft Declaration on International Solidarity. Egypt noted that good physical health could not be guaranteed without mental health, which should therefore be given more attention. Egypt was in favour of additional efforts to strengthen international solidarity. Afghanistan recommended that conflict and violence be considered as determinants of mental health as the impact of conflict went beyond physical injuries and disabilities. It also suggested that the right to mental health and psycho-social support be incorporated into peace talks. South Africa noted that with the adoption of the 2030 Development Agenda, the issue of mental health was quickly emerging. It agreed that the draft Declaration on International Solidarity would be useful in addressing inequalities, poverty and climate change.

Iran stated that non-discrimination was the primary prism through which it considered its citizens with physical and mental health issues. Iran welcomed the call of the Special Rapporteur for a “paradigm shift” to redirect the persons with mental disabilities from isolation to a social life. Therefore, organizing specific training courses for persons with disabilities was considered a national priority. Israel said it had embarked on a reform of its health system, bringing mental health services in the general health services basket. Dozens of new clinics had been opened thanks to this new framework and waiting lists to access health services had been reduced. He asked the Special Rapporteur to give details on how to further bridge the gap between physical and mental health. Tunisia took note of the principles stated in the report of the Special Rapporteur and recalled that the right to health was enshrined in the Constitution of Tunisia. Free medical treatment was provided for low income people and the country had reduced child mortality, ensuring a safe birth rate. A healthcare plan for 2016-2020 was bringing on further reforms to the health system.

World Health Organization welcomed the report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to health and reiterated the need to include different stakeholders in the elaboration of guidelines designed to bridge the gap in the attention given to physical compared to mental health. Guidance material had just been released on this particular topic. The World Health Organization asked the Special Rapporteur to give details on how could current mechanisms be made more participatory. Bolivia reiterated that upholding human rights in the sector of health was a key priority. Bolivia commended the effort made by the Independent Expert to present the draft Declaration on International Solidarity. It voiced concern on unilateral decisions taken by several States at the international level that were meddling in foreign policies. In particular, Bolivia was worried by the disregard expressed by some countries towards climate change engaments.

Burkina Faso said that mental health was addressed in the national health strategy, and a human rights approach to health was underway. It called on all stakeholders to step up their cooperation with the Special Rapporteur. Iraq stated that it sought to improve the healthcare situation without discrimination to anyone, and with focus on persons with disabilities. Challenges were enormous due to the current security context in the country, especially with respect to the fight against terrorism. Luxembourg greatly valued the principle of international solidarity, which formed an important part of the country’s foreign policy through the provision of development aid. International solidarity should be lived and practiced on the ground. Indonesia underlined that it had enacted a law on mental health, which provided comprehensive protection of the rights of persons with mental health problems. It commended the draft Declaration on International Solidarity. Bangladesh noted that States had to protect the human rights of all. However, that was not feasible without effective international cooperation, which was today more important than ever, due to rising inward-looking attitudes. State of Palestine reminded that Israel’s colonial occupation presented the most important barrier to the realization of the right to health. Mental health disorders constituted one of the most common health problems in the occupied Palestinian territories.

Côte d’Ivoire noted with concern that very often, mental health was neglected and was not attended to the way physical health was, and progress on mental health was slow. Mental health should be included in strategies on health. The Independent Expert was congratulated on her commitment; thanks to her work, international solidarity was becoming part of the set of human rights. Lithuania supported the work of the Special Rapporteur on health, noting that integrating mental health in other policies would ensure the required paradigm shift. The Special Rapporteur was asked to share best practices with regard to the mental health of children and adolescents. Botswana said mental health had received less attention than physical health, and today’s challenges called for adequate resources. The Independent Expert was asked to elaborate on views from the Experts’ Meeting with regard to international solidarity.

Allied Rainbow Communities International drew attention to the widespread stigmatization, maltreatment and forced medical treatment of trans persons with mental health problems. Americans for Democracy and Human Rights in Bahrain raised the issue of the deteriorating health conditions and the treatment of political prisoners and detainees in Bahrain. Colombian Commission of Jurists reminded that in 2010 the Constitutional Court of Colombia had taken a decision to protect the right to health of victims of armed violence. In light of the recent peace agreement, Colombia should implement the recommendations of the Special Rapporteur. Centre for Reproductive Rights noted that when women and girls were denied access to sexual and reproductive health services, they faced serious mental health challenges. Alliance Defending Freedom reminded that the execution of pregnant women was prohibited by international declarations and conventions. The current international consensus on abortion was that States were free to draw up their own laws on abortion. Centre Europe – Tiers Monde highlighted the broad use of pesticides and their negative impact on physical health, particularly in Argentina. Academic research had shown that chronic diseases had tripled due to the use of pesticides in agriculture.

Make Mothers Matter spoke about the mental health of mothers and its impact on early childhood and urged all Governments to pay due attention to this issue starting from the early stages of pregnancy, and to mainstream mental health into maternal health services. Action Canada for Population and Development stressed that various forms of discrimination continued to impede access of many groups, particularly women and girls, to mental health services. The Council, the United Nations and its Member States should take action to eliminate practices that prevented the attainment of the highest standards of physical and mental health. Association pour l’Intégration et le Développement Durable au Burundi urged the Human Rights Council to communicate with the Government of India to extend the invitation to the Special Rapporteur for health to visit Manjipur and to move the Indian security forces from hospitals and other health centres.

Centre Independent de Recherches et d’Initiatives pour le Dialogue expressed regret about the deteriorating health situation in Yemen as a result of the armed conflict, where 70,000 cases of cholera had been registered. The figure might reach 130,000 very soon. The war that continued in Yemen prevented all efforts to reach those in need.

Associazione Comunita Papa Giovanni XXIII, on behalf of severals NGOs¹, said that the recognition of international solidarity was increasingly relevant as it could counter the negative effects of globalization and create sustainable development at all levels, and preserve the universality of human rights. The recognition of this right stemmed from the need for equality and justice. Verein Sudwind Entwicklungspolitik said that post-traumatic stress disorder was a condition that must receive more attention, especially in countries like Iran. The condition was typical not only for the veterans of war but also for prisoners of conscience who were tortured in Iran.

Federation of Cuban Women said international solidarity was an ethical principle for all States, and although Cuba was a small nation which had suffered a blockade for 50 years, it provided aid in health, education, sport, agriculture, fishing and other areas to other countries. Association of World Citizens asked why some issues had not been presented separately, noting that it was problematic that HIV/AIDS was presented alongside mental health issues. In Europe, certain countries no longer prosecuted sex workers or persons who had sexual relations without declaring that they were HIV/AIDS positive.

Concluding Remarks

DAINIUS PURAS, Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, thanked all participating delegations for their contributions, and spoke about one successful transformation of a residential home for persons with mental illness into a cooperative project where people lived alongside one another. The whole field of mental health could be liberated from the legacy of hopelessness. But in many regions and countries, there were still a lot of people enclosed in large institutions. The fact that this situation persisted in Europe showed that the problem was not about money. States had to mainstream good practices and replicate them, to give the green light to rights-based alternatives that for various reasons were side-lined. Some groups in special situations of concern, such as women, children, adolescents and youth, suffered disproportionately. Adolescents would only use services if they were adolescent-friendly, and punitive measures should not be used. A public health approach was the way to address adolescent mental health. Psychosocial interventions were not a luxury; when parents received good parenting skills, they did not turn to violence against children. His dream, he said, was that the theme of mental health should receive the same commitment and collective will as had happened with the AIDS movement. A human rights-based approach would allow the international community to abandon the sad legacy of mental health.

VIRGINIA DANDAN, Independent Expert on human rights and international solidarity, in her concluding remarks, thanked all delegations that had expressed their support for the draft Declaration and stressed that the annex to the report she had presented earlier contained the legal review which examined the alignment of the draft Declaration with international law. Ms. Dandan said this was the last time that she would be addressing the Council as the Independent Expert, adding that in the past six years, the European Union had maintained the same statement that international solidarity did not meet the requirement of a legal obligation, without even bothering to read the reports. Who decided what were legally binding human rights, asked the Independent Expert, noting that the States that had ratified the two International Covenants had not known exactly what those rights entailed. When a human right was adopted, it was not perfect; what counted was how States practiced it. Thus, there was no “Bible” as to the legal process for the recognition of human rights.

Since human rights were not perfect, what the Member States of the Council did was to make them perfect – it was a work in progress. All the best things in life were a work in progress. What was a human right and what was not a human right could not be cast in stone. “Let us not fall into an illusion that there are some people who know, better than others, what human rights are,” underlined Ms. Dandan. No one should think that the right to international solidarity was just a bunch of words – it was not. There were States and State officials who were out there, doing the “dirty work”, implementing this right, and it was them who would eventually make this right recognized, concluded the Independent Expert.

_______________

¹Joint statement: Associazione Comunita Papa Giovanni XXIII; Foundation for GAIA; International Volunteerism Organization for Women, Education and Development – VIDES; Istituto Internazionale Maria Ausiliatrice delle Salesiane di Don Bosco; International Organization for the Right to Education and Freedom of Education (OIDEL); Planetary Association for Clean Energy (PACE); Institute for planetary synthesis (IPS); New-humanity; and International-Lawyers.Org.



For use of the information media; not an official record

HRC17/073E