HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL DISCUSSES FUTURE PROGRAMME OF WORK; DIALOGUE AND COOPERATION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

The Human Rights Council this morning discussed its programme of work for its future sessions and debated the issue of dialogue and cooperation on human rights which included human rights education and learning, advisory services, technical assistance and capacity-building.

In the debate on the programme of work for the first year of the Council, many speakers felt that the proposal submitted by Norway represented a good basis on which to move forward. Several speakers supported the principle of establishing working groups in a flexible framework that would allow for both formal and informal consultations. Some speakers cautioned, however, the necessity to avoid any overlap between the Council and informal groups in order to take account of the means available to Missions and their limited staffing. Speakers made the connection between predictability of the programme of work with transparency and equity in allowing all relevant stakeholders to be able to participate. Other speakers noted, too, that the Council should provide a balance between predictability and flexibility, so that it could effectively deal with emerging issues and situations.

Mehr Khan Williams, Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights, addressing the issue of dialogue and cooperation on human rights, said that the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights (OHCHR) was convinced that it was at the ground level – by involving officials and civil society – that the greatest differences could be made. Technical cooperation was an integral part of OHCHR’s country engagement strategy that aimed to support both rights-holders and duty-bearers in a timely and context-specific manner. Country offices presented the most effective way for OHCHR to carry out technical cooperation projects. Recent examples were the three country offices established last year in Nepal, Guatemala, and in Uganda.

In the debate on dialogue and cooperation on human rights, including human rights education and learning, advisory services, technical assistance and capacity-building, a speaker identified that the Council’s overall objective should aim at enhancing the endogenous capacity of the receiving State to identify and address critical human rights problems and face challenges. Several speakers noted that the promotion of education and training on human rights was a priority for the Council, as was the commitment to strengthen the capacity of States and increase technical cooperation. Some speakers felt that technical cooperation in the field of human rights should be freed from all forms of conditionality. Many speakers acknowledged that, in this area, the Council would benefit from close cooperation with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the special procedures, who should address the Council at each session. Finally, one speaker said that the spirit of dialogue and cooperation should be reflected in the rules of procedure of the Council.

Taking part in the debate on the programme of work were the representatives of Switzerland, Norway, Australia, speaking also on behalf of Canada and New Zealand, Austria, on behalf of the European Union, Algeria, on behalf of the African Group, Japan, Indonesia, Cuba, Mexico, Iran and Syria. Also addressing that topic were the following non-governmental organizations: Human Rights Watch, Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples, Indian Council of Education, International Institute for Non-Aligned Studies, Coordinating Board Of Jewish Organizations (in a joint statement with B'nai B'rith International, International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists and Women's International Zionist Organization).

Addressing the issue of dialogue and cooperation on human rights were the representatives of Austria, on behalf of the European Union, Switzerland, Algeria, on behalf of the African Group, Canada, Ghana, Sri Lanka, Mexico, Indonesia, the Republic of Korea, Guatemala, Japan, Colombia, the Holy See, Côte d’Ivoire, Thailand, Slovenia, Nepal, Iran, Tanzania, and Sweden. A representative of the United Nations Development Programme also spoke. Non-governmental organizations speaking on this topic were Sokka Gakai International (in a joint statement on behalf of 21 international human rights NGOs), Ius Primi Viri, and the Center for Women’s Global Leadership.

The next plenary meeting of the Council will be held this afternoon, at 3 p.m., when members will begin to take action on draft resolutions, decisions and other proposals. The Council will conclude its first session on Friday, 30 June.

Statements on Programme of Work for Future Sessions of the Council

JEANNINE VOLKEN (Switzerland) said that the structure of the Council’s programme of work should allow for some flexibility, to allow for dialogue and cooperation. The first year would be intensive, as the Council would have to deal jointly with strengthening the new body, as well as treat substantive human rights questions. Like other delegations, Switzerland would like to allow the Council to consider the reports of the special procedures at each session, so that it could have the benefit of the most up-to-date information for its debates. Switzerland supported the principle of establishing working groups in a flexible framework that would allow for both formal and informal consultations. The most important thing was that they complete their work within the deadline set out in the General Assembly resolution 60/251.

Switzerland recalled that the promotion of human rights education was part of the mandate given to the Council in its founding resolution. In that context, it was necessary for all relevant actors to think about new methods of work, in particular with respect to education and training in human rights. They could organize a time for discussions during each session of the Council that would be able to take advantage of the expertise, schools and universities as well as other independent experts.

ASTRID HELLE AJAMAY (Norway) said the main purpose of the drawing up of the programme of work for the first year of the Council was to enhance transparency and predictability. While a sufficient level of flexibility should be retained throughout the agenda for each session, the programme of work should provide a certain level of predictability to ensure that the discussions taking place in the Council were focused and well prepared, and that relevant stakeholders could participate. The first year of the Council was a transitional year. A distinction should be made between the programme of work for the first year and the agenda of the Council. The agenda for each session of the first year would flow from the programme of work of the year. A separate issue would be the agenda of the Council for the subsequent years and the programme of work for the subsequent years.

The September session would focus on the legacy, and allow for presentations and an interactive dialogue on all the reports of the mechanisms and mandates that were due for the last session of the Commission. Pending the outcome of the review, the Council would may be not have to envisage decisions on those reports this year, but it would be an opportunity to have a dialogue on each mechanism and mandate. The December session would mainly deal with the new mechanisms, with progress reports of intersessional mechanisms and further discussion and possibly decisions on the universal periodic review, the review of mandates, mechanisms, functions and responsibilities, and the methods of work.

CAROLINE MILLAR (Australia), speaking also on behalf of Canada and New Zealand, said that regarding the programme of work for the Council, they were attracted by the approach that Norway had taken in its draft framework, which they felt sensibly stepped through the elements of a possible programme of work for the year ahead. Australia, Canada and New Zealand also supported a consensus omnibus decision for extending all mandates for a period of one year. Intersessional work would be required to take issues such as the universal periodic review, forward. At this stage, they felt that the Council should not necessarily rush to a formal approach, but should grant the President sufficient flexibility to determine the best way forward.

The special procedures had a central role to play in an implementation-oriented Council and could be better integrated into its work, including through participation in debates on specific issues. In September, the Council would also have to leave sufficient time to consider other outstanding reports such as those from the Sub-Commission, the 1503 procedure and various reports requested by the Commission. If the Council carefully laid the building blocks now for the future of the Human Rights Council, they would reap the rewards later.

WOLFGANG PETRITSCH (Austria), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the agenda and programme of work of the Council should provide a balance between predictability in the Council’s work and flexibility in the Council’s ability to respond effectively to emerging issues and situations. The programme of work should be indicative for the debates that would take place in the Council, but should not fix all issues to be dealt with in the course of the year. The proposed framework met that consideration. The programme of work should set out in broad terms when issues would be discussed in plenary debates. Such an agreed, advance programme of work could provide predictability for non-governmental organizations, national human rights institutions, and delegations to allow planning for upcoming meetings. That predictability would also be beneficial to the special procedures, which should have the opportunity to participate actively, through an interactive dialogue, in all sessions of the Council, including during the first year.

The programme of work should avoid dichotomies between different types of rights and the perceived selectivity of the Council agenda. It was essential to work on the basis of one generic item, dealing with the promotion and protection of human rights as a whole, while avoiding artificial differences between economic, social and cultural rights on the one hand and civil and political rights on the other. The European Union acknowledged that the first year of the Council would mainly be a transitional year.

IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria), speaking on behalf of the African Group, said that it welcomed the contribution of Norway to submit a proposed programme of work. The African Group wanted to stress the necessity of avoiding any overlap between the Council and informal groups in order to take account of the means available to Missions and their limited staffing. At the September meeting the African Group put particular emphasis on balanced non-discriminatory treatment. To that end, it believed they should proceed to consider matters on a category-by-category basis.

The African Group also stressed the importance of the progressive and parallel work of the working groups that had been created under General Assembly resolution 60/251. The African Group considered it was indispensable to allow members to submit initiatives for the promotion and protection of human rights to the Council. However, it felt that the 15-day deadline for submission of such initiatives by delegations before the Council’s consideration should be optional, and not mandatory

SHIGERU ENDO (Japan) said since this year was the first year of the Council, much diligence on procedural issues was needed. Procedural issues were important as the foundation of the Council. Japan was ready to actively participate in the debates of the Council. The Council should tackle not only procedural issues but also substantive ones, and a good balance between the two was of great importance. There still were many human rights violations. The world was watching the Council and the Council should meet the world’s expectations. In order to have a clearer picture about which issues would be dealt at which session, it was indispensable to have a programme of work at least for this transitional year.

WIWIEK SETYAWATI (Indonesia) said that the issue of a programme of work for future sessions of the Human Rights Council was an important one. It should be agreed and decided upon at the first session of the Council in order to give it a clear and predictable mandate for its first years. The Council should also be able to maintain its ability to entertain and deal with grave human rights situations. That should be discussed at the earliest possible time. In Indonesia’s view, the need to achieve predictability did not preclude the need for a certain amount of flexibility. They felt that the draft submitted by Norway could serve as a good basis on which to move forward.

Indonesia fully subscribed to the following of the presentation of special procedures reports with an interactive debate in the Council, as they had done in this session. It was important that the Council be able to take up substantive human rights questions at all sessions: including such issues as human rights education, the human rights of migrants, and others.

RODOLFO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) thanked the delegation of Norway for the consultations it held with regard to the programme of work and wished to procure a copy of the revised version of the consultation. Some elements put forward by the delegation of Indonesia were very important to debate in the Council. Transitional arrangements were necessary for the first year of the Council. The basic session of spring should be the main one and its schedule should be respected. The question of human rights should be the relevant issue of the Council during all of its sessions. The Third Committee was also a body of the United Nations that should take decisions on behalf of all the Member States. Parallel efforts should also be made in the Council on organizing the work of the Council.

LUIS JAVIER CAMPUZANO (Mexico) said that Mexico thanked Norway for its contribution to the consideration of the Council’s programme of work. They were in a year of transition, and they did have to look at aspects that were the legacy of the Commission. Quite possibly, in light of the negotiations they had already seen, those could be analysed in the context of considering the reports of the special procedures. Delegations would then have a very clear view of the main themes and could take better, more informed decisions.

Mexico considered that in September, December, March and April the Council needed an adequate distribution of its workload. The Council also needed to have the opportunity to consider initiatives submitted by members regarding the content of the Council. That would have to be planned out, in order to give delegations the predictability that they all hoped for.

MOSTAFA ALAEI (Iran) said the programme of work should reflect the priorities identified by the international community concerning the themes and conceptions as well as structural framework of the Council and relevant bodies. What the international community needed for the first year was to conclude structural changes within the duration outlined by the resolution 60/251 which was crucially significant for the realization of the task entrusted to the Council. The programme of work should be formulated in a way to ensure that at the conclusion of the first year programme all structural and procedural changes were treated equally and tackled simultaneously.

MARIETTE GRANGE, of Human Rights Watch, said that the regular meeting schedule of the new Human Rights Council, with at least three sessions during each year, for a total duration of 10 weeks, offered a substantial opportunity to improve upon the work of the Commission. Human Rights Watch welcomed the opportunity for the High Commissioner for Human Rights to address the Council at each session. Regular dialogue with the High Commissioner would assist the Council to follow and respond to human rights developments. Similarly, the Council would be strengthened by regular updates and dialogues with the special procedures at each of its meetings throughout the year, which would strengthen implementation and follow-up of recommendations in a timely manner, in stark contrast with past practice.

GIANFRANCO FATTORINI, of Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples, said the first year of the Council should exceptionally contain, in addition to is main sessions, several formal and informal meetings. Concerning the universal periodic review mechanism, the Movement believed that it would be an innovative procedure. Although the cost would be high to hold several meetings, it would be an asset for the victims of human rights violations. He asked what was meant by main session if it was not different from the high-level segment.

SHRI PRAKASH, of Indian Council of Education, said that it was not clear whether the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights would continue to function as before, which it should, since the phenomenon of uneven economic and social development all over the world had but ethnic minorities at a disadvantage, if not under oppression by States controlled by linguistic or religious majorities or economically and militarily powerful elites. Hence, a continuous, considerate and concentrated monitoring and survey of the state and progress of ethnic minorities should be given a greater place in the work of the Human Rights Council.

PRAMILA SRIVASTAVA, of International Institute for Non-Aligned Studies, said that one of the first objectives of the Council was to make it more representative of civil society as a whole. Concerning the agenda, issues like environmental governance, the right to health and the concept of health in different civilizations cultures and social systems as applicable to different age and sex groups of the population, the right to entertainment with socially agreed limits, needed to be included by the Council in the role of the non-governmental organizations (NGOs), the process of their inclusion or exclusion. The meetings held by NGOs during the lunchtime hour while the Council was in session should be continued.

KLAUS NETTER, of Coordinating Board Of Jewish Organizations (in a joint statement with B'nai B'rith International, International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists and Women's International Zionist Organization) said that there had been undue pressure from a large number of States to single out particular issues in the agenda and programme of work for this initial session of the Council. That contravened the eloquent warnings of the Secretary-General, who had pleaded for a clean break from the past and warned against getting caught up in political point-scoring and petty manoeuvres. As a result, the meeting reserved for substantive issues on Monday turned into a repetitive discussion of some or all of the five issues to the detriment of numerous other human rights issues confronting countries around the world, with obsessive focus on the Israel-Arab conflict.

GHASSAN OBEID (Syria) said the programme of work of the future work of the Council should be adopted by consensus. The future programme should take into consideration not only the wishes of the participants but also those of the international community. The programme should also provide governmental bodies the chance to fully participate in the debate. The Council should also provide programmes to delegates in advance on issues on which to debate. The issue of occupation should also be debated in the future.

Statements on the Issue of Dialogue and Cooperation on Human Rights

MEHR KHAN WILLIAMS, Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights, said that Governments had the primary responsibility for protecting human rights. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) was convinced that it was at the ground level – by involving officials and civil society – that the greatest differences could be made. Technical cooperation was an integral part of the Office’s country engagement strategy that aimed to support both rights-holders and duty-bearers in a timely and context-specific manner. Country engagement meant interaction with all countries on all human rights. It was based on an Office-wide assessment of the implementation gaps in each country in order to develop appropriate strategies for the protection of human rights through a consultative process. Typical programme activities included assistance for efforts to incorporate international human rights standards into national laws, policies and practices, on treaty reporting and on human rights education, among others.

Ms. Williams said that country offices presented the most effective way for OHCHR to carry out technical cooperation projects. Recent examples were the three country offices established last year in Nepal, Guatemala, and in Uganda. OHCHR’s presence in the different regions of Nepal was credited for having contributed towards the protection of vulnerable populations, including detainees and human rights defenders. In Guatemala, the Office had embarked on a joint effort with the Government, as well as civil society organizations to address long-standing problems, including discrimination faced by indigenous peoples, poverty, and public insecurity, affecting women in particular. And, in Uganda, the Office had established open communication channels with the Government and with security sector institutions relating to the prevention of, and response to, human rights violations. OHCHR also pursued country engagement strategies through other United Nations partners in the field and played a central role in enabling the human rights components of peace missions to go beyond their traditional monitoring role mandated by the Security Council and to provide technical cooperation and training.

In the field of human rights education, in December 2004 United Nations Member States had proclaimed the World Programme of Human Rights Education. The World Programme aimed at supporting existing human rights education and learning activities, and building on the achievements of the United Nations Decade for Human Rights Education (1995-2004). The first three years of the World Programme focused on the integration of human rights education in primary and secondary school systems. In conclusion, Ms. Williams observed that all of OHCHR’s work was geared towards strengthening the capacity of partners to protect and empower people.

WOLFGANG PETRITSCH (Austria), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that the European Union believed that human rights education and learning were essential for the achievement of stable and harmonious relations among communities, and for fostering mutual understanding, tolerance and peace. In that regard, the European Union commended the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization for their leading international role in that field and also attached great importance to the contributions by regional human rights organizations. The European Union fully supported the World Programme for Human Rights Education to advance the implementation of its programmes in all sectors, building on the achievements of the United Nations Decade for Human Rights Education. In that regard, all should take a more active stand to implement the Plan of Action for the first phase which covered the period 2005-2007 and would focus on the primary and secondary school systems.

The European Union welcomed the biannual Strategic Management Plan of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, which aimed at increasing constructive country engagement. The European Union further supported the objective of enhancing technical assistance to help States in translating human rights norms into practice on the ground.

JEAN-DANIEL VIGNY (Switzerland) said dialogue and cooperation were essential and substantive issues in the new Council. One of the main concerns of Switzerland and other countries was to ensure the new body did not fall into the pitfall of the Commission. Everything was to be gained in creating a climate of dialogue, incitation and responsibility instead of confrontation and politicisation. The Council could adopt a gradual approach, based on dialogue and cooperation with all concerned actors, both States and non-State actors, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and civil society. This approach, where it was possible, was the best for producing concrete results, and an improvement of the situation of human rights in the field.

But cooperation should go both ways. By accepting resolution A/60/251, States, in particular Member States of the Council, were committed to cooperating with the latter. The Commission had too few instruments enabling it to satisfactorily deal with and adapt to the situation of human rights in countries. With the creation of the universal periodic review, the Council now had an instrument allowing it to discuss the situation in a balanced and objective manner.

IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria), on behalf of the African Group, said the African Group asserted the key role of the Council in defining the concepts, content and action-oriented guidelines of the dialogue and cooperation policy to be adopted and implemented by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. It advocated closer cooperation in the field of human rights between the Office and regional organizations such as the African Union and others. It attached importance to the respect of the United Nations Charter principles including the principles of sovereign equality of States and of the self-determination of peoples on the one hand, and of the universal outreach and indivisibility of human rights on the other. All categories of human rights should enjoy equal treatment.

The African Group was committed to see to it that the link between human rights and development was clearly established in the framework of this cooperation. Technical cooperation in the field of human rights should be freed from all forms of conditionality. The universality of human rights was recognised, but the specificities and level of development of each people should be taken into account. The African Group was committed to United Nations General Assembly resolution 56/142 of 8 February 2002 entitled Reinforcement of International Cooperation in the Field of Human Rights.
HENRI-PAUL NORMANDIN (Canada) said that Canada was fully supportive of dialogue and cooperation in the field of human rights and for technical cooperation to develop capacity within States to implement human rights. Where States had a genuine desire to improve human rights within their borders, such activities could really make a difference for people and contribute to meaningful improvements in the human rights situation. For human rights progress in any country two ingredients were essential: will and capacity. In cases where there was no will, the Council would have to look beyond technical cooperation to address lack of implementation of human rights; and when dialogue was not sufficient to produce results, the Council would have to take other means to ensure that States lived up to their international obligations.

Canada said that the international community had to be well equipped to respond to increasing calls from States for more technical cooperation – starting with the Council, as well as the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. It also believed that the universal periodic review process would allow States to identify their needs for technical cooperation and mobilize support from the Council and the international community for such cooperation.

AMMA GAISE (Ghana) said it was not enough to recognize the universality, indivisibility, interdependence and mutually reinforcing nature of all human rights. Rather, it was more important to take practical measures and provide the means for attaining or realizing those rights. The full and proper realization of all human rights would in turn, promote the values of tolerance, compromise, mutual respect and respect for pluralism. For countries to achieve that aim therefore, it was essential that countries that did not have enough resources should be provided with the necessary financial capacity, logistics and technical assistance to enable them to promote human rights education and implementation.

In Ghana, there were constitutional bodies which protected human rights. There was the National Commission on Civil Education, which was tasked with the education of the public on its civil rights and responsibilities, and the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice, which was Ghana’s National Human Rights Institution. Those bodies had serious logistical, financial and technical problems, which hindered their ability to perform as expected.

SARALA FERNANDO (Sri Lanka) said the first session of the Council should give a fresh start to thinking on technical cooperation. Technical cooperation should not be linked to the imposing of resolutions mostly against developing countries. There needed to be a development dimension brought into the Office’s technical cooperation, and this should be demand-driven, based on beneficiaries needs, and provided in cooperation and consultation and with the consent of Member States. The overall objective of the strategy should aim at enhancing the endogenous capacity of the receiving State to identify and address critical human rights problems, face challenges, and reap opportunities and to set and implement their own protection and development strategies.

Activities should be supportive of poverty reduction policies and the implementation of the international development goals, including those in the Millennium Declaration. Capacity building should focus on enhancing developing countries’ own capacity to formulate, implement and evaluate homegrown policies. An integrated approach should be taken at the level of the Office for delivery of holistic and multidisciplinary technical cooperation, and capacity development involving all human rights, civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development. The most important element in successful technical cooperation was the development of commitment in the receiving State.

XOCHITI GALVEZ (Mexico) said that Mexico reaffirmed the mandate of the Council to promote human rights education and learning, and to provide advisory services, technical assistance and capacity-building, and welcomed the fact that it was high on the list of issues that the Council was to address. It was the obligation of States to raise awareness and sensitize their citizens to human rights issues, so that they could fulfil their international human rights obligations. For that reason, Mexico had developed a human rights education training programme at all levels. In 2003, Mexico signed a human rights cooperation programme with the European Union to strengthen the capacity of civil society and the relevant governmental authorities working in the human rights field to strengthen and develop human rights public policy.

In this area, Mexico acknowledged the invaluable contribution of the World Programme on Human Rights Education, as well as the work carried out by UNESCO and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). Mexico considered that the Council should promote human rights education, develop capacity and where necessary provide technical assistance. Those activities should be carried out with the help of and in coordination with the OHCHR.

GUSTI AGUNG WESAKA PUJA (Indonesia) said that to the delegation of Indonesia, the insertion of the item under discussion today was a bit surprising, since it was the view of the delegation that the first session of the Council was dedicated to the procedural aspects of the Council. Indonesia shared the view of the great importance of human rights dialogue and cooperation, which were the Government’s priorities as contained in the Human Rights National Plan of Action of 2004-2009. The spirit of dialogue and cooperation had indeed become the best vehicle to strengthen a dynamic system of pluralism, multi-ethnic, and multi-religious society.

Indonesia was of the view that the Council should put greater emphasis on technical assistance and human rights education.

DONG-HEE CHANG (Republic of Korea) said there had been an exchange of views on the functioning of the Council, and today it was discussing dialogue and cooperation, which was an important element which would make the Council more effective and more credible. There were two sides to dialogue and cooperation, the institutional aspect and the cultural aspect. The new universal periodic review should encourage the sharing of ideas and collaboration, as well as provide a genuine and fair assessment. The spirit of dialogue and cooperation should be reflected in the rules of procedure of the Council.

The spirit of dialogue and cooperation was needed to make the Council more functional and in order to meet expectations. All stakeholders should strive to create an atmosphere of dialogue. Poverty, discrimination, and cultural and religious tensions were of particular significance, and at the root of most human rights problems worldwide. The Council, based on dialogue and human rights, should be more actively engaged whenever and wherever it came to serious human rights abuses.
ANGELA CHAVEZ BIETTI (Guatemala) said that Guatemala wished to thank the High Commissioner for Human Rights for responding to Guatemala’s request to establish an office of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights there, and for helping Guatemala implement the peace accords.

SHIGERU ENDO (Japan) said Japan put emphasis on dialogue and cooperation. The Government of Japan was supporting the self-reliance of the developing countries through its international assistance programme. It had also dispatched Japanese experts to those developing countries to help them develop their capacities. It was important that the developing countries should be assisted in their efforts to sustain their human rights. Japan believed that a spirit of dialogue and cooperation, based on mutual understanding and respect, should be carried out. In matters of trafficking in human beings, Japan had been committed to tackling the problem through bilateral efforts with other countries.

VICTORIA GONZALEZ ARIZA (Colombia) said in tackling the subject of dialogue and cooperation in the field of human rights, there were a number of documents, including the United Nations Charter, and the Vienna Declaration of 1993. The practice of naming and shaming was a practice which the Council should leave behind, in order to enjoy technical cooperation where States asked for it. Technical cooperation should focus on strengthening national human rights institutions, as strong institutions were part of the exercise of human rights for all citizens. Effective cooperation, based on a range of components, should contribute to the promotion and protection of human rights.

ODILE SORGHO- MOULINIER, of United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), said that by embracing the concept of human development, UNDP had grounded its approach to development in human rights. That was evident in the services that they provided to countries. UNDP’s first concern was to build the capacity of its own offices, but now had also begun strengthening capacity of countries. Since 1999, in cooperation with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Programme had implemented a human rights programme, URIS. In April 2005, the Programme had developed a human rights policy that aimed to strengthen national human rights systems and to develop a human rights approach to all of their development programming. Through the Council, the Programme would explore the role that it could play in addressing the topic before them.

SILVANO M. TOMASI (Holy See) said dialogue and cooperation in the implementation of human rights were rightly set as a critical goal for the new Council. The Holy See deeply believed that respect for human dignity was the common ground and the necessary component on which the human family could engage in a successful human rights education, promotion and protection. Human rights dignity provided equal value for both individuals and peoples in their rich original diversity and its respect called for effective action and sincere dialogue among States. It was a spiritual and moral imperative for the international community. All human rights and fundamental freedoms should be promoted and protected, including the important issues identified in the present debate.

In the present circumstances, religion was often considered as a factor of division and social tensions. Even worse, it was considered as a threat to human rights, peace and security. However, religion has spread positive values and revealed the dignity of human beings and of creation.

CLAUDE DASSYS BEKE (Côte d’Ivoire) said the promotion of education and training on human rights was a priority for the Council, and the commitment was to strengthen the capacity of States and increase technical cooperation. This awareness was by no means new among nations, but the resolution establishing the Council invited States to review their vision and practice with regards to human rights education. This approach reflected the universality dear to the Council, that it should call for human rights for its Member States and for others.

The resolution gave rise to hope that there would be an improvement in technical cooperation that countries needed in order to promote human rights. Anyone who had received human rights education could say that it responded to the true aspirations of the people. The Human Rights Council gave hope that there would be greater assistance and solidarity from the community of nations and the competent bodies.

NETITHORN PRADITSARN (Thailand) said that Thailand was of the view that constructive dialogue and cooperation on human rights at all levels would help prevent human rights violations and ultimately lead to more sustainable human rights promotion and protection. Thailand believed that the Human Rights Council could play a vital role in promoting human rights education as well as the existing guidelines adopted by States within the United Nations framework through continuing dialogue with States and providing a forum for States to share and exchange views and best practices. For its part, Thailand had transplanted international obligations into concrete action at the national level by adopting a national plan on human rights education for 1999-2007. That was coupled with awareness-raising campaigns to ensure implementation of the plan. Moreover, human rights education was a life-long learning process and should not be confined to formal education settings. Many government agencies in Thailand, such as the police, the military, the Office of the Attorney General, and the Ministry of Justice, had continuously organized training on human rights issues.

Thailand felt that the Human Rights Council could seek to promote advisory services, technical assistance and capacity-building by requesting support from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). With its field offices worldwide, the OHCHR already had access to the relevant authorities and organizations at the national and local levels. The Council should take advantage of such available instruments and make full use of the existing mechanisms.

ANDREJ LOGAR (Slovenia) said that during its Chairmanship of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) in 2005, Slovenian had developed a pilot project based on the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The project consisted of a new teaching tool in the form of illustrated cards for the education of children between 10 and 12 years of age about their rights. Special attention was paid to the cultural diversify of OSCE participating States in the preparation of the texts and illustrations of the cards. The same set of teaching cards for pupils and the information for teachers was published, disseminated and implemented in 14 languages. The teaching tool in Roma language was used in several countries. Approximately 11,000 children and 300 teachers from 12 States had implemented the project so far. Slovenia strongly advocated strengthening cooperation with regional organizations, as well as with civil society, in that area.

GYAN CHANDRA ACHARYA (Nepal) said the General Assembly Resolution called for building country capacity for human rights. Dialogue, cooperation and capacity building were thus very important. Capacity-building involved a strengthening of all human rights issues and related bodies in the country. Any meaningful exercise towards capacity building should reaffirm the indivisibility of civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights. Consolidation of national institutions, intensification of human rights education and awareness programmes, observance and compliance of human rights norms and standards, and cooperation with the treaty bodies were some areas of cooperation.

The issues of poverty, deprivation and discrimination were the worst enemies of human rights. Sustained international cooperation for increasing socio-economic conditions should complement national efforts to capacity building.

MOSTAFA ALAEI (Iran) said that international cooperation and dialogue was a paradigm for the international community. The spirit of technical assistance, which was actually a measure for the building of the necessary infrastructure for the better promotion and protection of human rights, should find wide support from the human rights system, including in addressing human rights situations. One way to do that was to develop seminars to address dialogue among civilizations, which would have an effect on standard-setting as well as at the field level.

Iran said that the High Commissioner’s Office, while undertaking technical assistance and country programmes, should take into account geographic and cultural specificities as well as development issues. He wondered how the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights could help to mainstream dialogue and cooperation on human rights into all of the bodies of the United Nations.

MATHEW MWAIMU (Tanzania) said Tanzania, like many others, was making every effort to ensure that citizens enjoyed their basic human rights to the fullest level possible. In that regard, apart from the rights being incorporated in the Constitution, the Government was making maximum efforts in the implementation of other human rights. The Government had given human rights education a priority. The curriculum for human rights education had been introduced in civic education in secondary schools and as a subject in higher learning institutions when law was taught.

ELINOR HAMMARSKJOLD (Sweden) said the clear mandate of the Council with respect to technical cooperation and capacity building was a clear method of improving human rights, was an example of concrete action, and was an area where the Council could play a strong role. If technical assistance were to have a real impact on the ground, then it should imply a commitment to human rights. The human rights perspective was an integrated part of Sweden’s policy for technical development, and it looked forward to working with all partners in realising the Council’s plans in this regard.

JEAN DAVID PONCI, of Soka Gakkai International, speaking on behalf of several NGOs1, said that in order to ensure that human rights education and learning were treated as one of the substantial issues, when the Council determined its list of agenda items on substantial issues, one of the agenda items should be entitled “Human rights education and learning as well as advisory services, technical assistance and capacity-building”. All the mandate-holders should review the role of human rights education and learning in preventing human rights violations within their mandate and include the final review in their respective reports. And, in the discussion of the modalities of the universal periodic review, the Council should take into account human rights education and learning as one of the essential elements.

ANGELA MARIA LORETO, of Ius Primi Viri International Association, said that around 200 participants had gathered at the Italian Senate to attend the International Conference on “Education for Human Dignity” to contribute to the implementation of the “World Programme of Human Rights Education”, and adopted a declaration. Among other things, the declaration stated that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognized the equal dignity of all human beings of the planet; dignity was rooted in the human genome as a project that should be implemented during the entire lifespan; and dignity was the main value of life.

CHARLOTTE BUNCH, of Centre for Women's Global Leadership, said women welcomed the commitment to human rights as a pillar of the United Nations system. Too many women and girls around the world were unaware of the human rights they were afforded by international law, and were often unable to avail themselves of human rights education when they had not even had access to basic education. Women around the world wanted the Council to be bold, and to generate and integrate perspectives that were thorough and comprehensive, and not selective or discriminatory. The Council should explicitly commit to gender mainstreaming in all the work of the Council, both as a matter of principle and as an educational effort.





1Joint statement: Institute for Planetary Synthesis; Interfaith International; International Association of Gerontology and Geriatrics; International Association for Religious Freedom; International Council of Jewish Women; International Council of Women; International Federation of University Women; International Movement against all Forms of Discrimination and Racism; Lutheran World Federation; International Organization for the Development of Freedom of Education; Pax Romana; World Federation of Methodist and Uniting Church Women; Pan Pacific and South East Asia Women's Association of Thailand; Planetary Association for Clean Energy; Servas International; Women's Federation for World Peace International; Women's World Summit Foundation; World Union of Catholic Women's Organizations; World Young Women's Christian Association; and Worldwide Organization for Women.