HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL OPENS RESUMED SECOND SESSION

The Human Rights Council this morning opened its resumed second session, adopting three resolutions and seven decisions, including on the review of the mandates of the Council, access to water, extreme poverty, human rights in the occupied Syrian Golan, the right to truth, the incompatibility between democracy and racism, access to medication in the context of pandemics, the right of everyone to the right to health, the effects of economic reform policies and foreign debt on the full enjoyment of all human rights, and integrity of the judicial system.

After the Council concludes taking action on deferred draft resolutions and decisions, it will start its scheduled third session.

In a resolution on the Intergovernmental Working Group on the Review of Mandates, adopted by a vote of 30 in favour, 15 against, and two abstentions, the Council requested the Open-ended Intergovernmental Working Group on the Review of Mandates to review the revised draft manual of the United Nations human rights Special Procedures of June 2006 and to make recommendations on possible additions or amendments thereto.

In a decision on human rights and access to water, the Council requested the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to conduct a detailed study on the scope and content of the relevant human rights obligations related to equitable access to safe drinking water and sanitation under international human rights instruments.

In a resolution on human rights and extreme poverty, the Council, taking note of the draft guiding principles on extreme poverty and human rights: the rights of the poor, requested the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to circulate the draft guiding principles, in order to obtain the views of States, relevant United Nations agencies, intergovernmental organizations, United Nations treaty bodies, Special Procedures and other relevant stakeholders.

In a resolution on human rights in the occupied Syrian Golan, adopted by a vote of 32 in favour, one against and 14 abstentions, the Council called upon Israel, the occupying power, to comply with the relevant resolutions of the General Assembly and of the Security Council, in particular resolution 497 (1981); and determined that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken or to be taken by Israel, the occupying power, that purported to alter the character and legal status of the occupied Syrian Golan were null and void, constituted a flagrant violation of international law and of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and had no legal effect.

In a decision on the right to the truth, the Council decided to request the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to prepare a follow-up report on the study on the right to the truth.

In a decision on incompatibility between democracy and racism the Council requested the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, when submitting his report to the Council at any session after its fourth session, to include the issue of political participation and representation of groups that are vulnerable to racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance in the decision-making process in national Governments, parties, parliaments and civil society in general.

In a decision on access to medication in the context of pandemics such as
HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, the Council requested the Secretary-General, when submitting his report to the Human Rights Council at any session after its fourth session, to include a study on the exploration of new and innovative financing mechanisms, bearing in mind the existing ones, which can help to improve the access to medication that fight those pandemics, from the perspective of human rights.

Under a decision on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest
attainable standard of physical and mental health, the Council requested the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, when presenting his report to the Human Rights Council at any session after its fourth session, to include the possibility of identifying and exploring the key features of an effective, integrated and accessible health system.

In a decision on effects of economic reform policies and foreign debt on the full enjoyment of all human rights, adopted by a vote with 33 in favour, 13 against and one abstention, the Council decided to request the High Commissioner for Human Rights to convene an Expert Consultation to discuss the proposed draft general guidelines.

And in a decision on integrity of the judicial system, the Council decided to ask the Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers to take full account of the relevant resolutions on the issue of administration of justice through military tribunals of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights in the discharge of his mandate and in his report to the fourth session of the Council.

Speaking this morning as concerned countries were Syria and Israel.

Speaking in general comments were Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, Spain, India, Brazil, Algeria, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Zambia, Philippines, and Bahrain on behalf of the Arab Group.

Speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote were Mexico, Finland for the European Union, Canada, Uruguay, Argentina, China, and Japan.

Speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote were Ecuador, Guatemala, Indonesia, and Argentina.

The next meeting of the Council will be at 3 p.m. this afternoon, when it will continue to take action on draft resolutions and decisions.

Action on Draft Resolutions and Decisions

Resolution on the Intergovernmental Working Group on the Review of Mandates

In a resolution (A/HRC/2/L.2/Rev.1) on the Intergovernmental Working Group on the Review of Mandates, by a vote of 30 in favour, 15 against, and two abstentions (Argentina and Uruguay), the Council requests the Open-ended Intergovernmental Working Group on the Review of Mandates to review the revised draft manual of the United Nations human rights Special Procedures of June 2006 and to make recommendations on possible additions or amendments thereto; also requests the Coordinating Committee of the Special Procedures to extend until the closure of the fourth session of the Human Rights Council, which will be held from 12 March to 6 April 2007, the deadline for the submission of comments and inputs to the draft manual of Special Procedures; and further requests the Working Group to draft a code of conduct regulating the work of the Special Procedures, taking into account, inter alia, the suggestions made by the members of the Council during the discussions at its second session on the reports of the special procedures mandate holders, as well as at previous formal and informal sessions of the Working Group.


The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour (30): Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brazil, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Ecuador, Gabon, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Japan, Jordan, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritius, Morocco, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Tunisia, and Zambia.

Against (15): Canada, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Guatemala, Mexico, Netherlands, Poland, Peru, Republic of Korea, Romania, Switzerland, United Kingdom, and Ukraine.

Abstentions (2): Argentina, Uruguay.


TEHMINA JANJUA (Pakistan), speaking in a general comment, said Pakistan hoped that the Working Group on the implementation of operative paragraph 6 of General Assembly resolution 60/251 to review, and where necessary, improve and rationalize all mandates of its Special Procedures, expert advice, and a complaint procedure, would continue carrying out a fruitful work. Pakistan also hoped that the text of the draft resolution would be adopted by consensus.

PABLO MACEDO (Mexico), in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said Mexico felt that the Council should not refer to the code of conduct applied to the Special Procedures. The Council was working with consensus and the smooth development of such a procedure should not be interrupted. Mexico would vote against the draft resolution.

VESA HIMANEN (Finland), speaking on behalf of the European Union in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said the European Union could not support the draft resolution. The Human Rights Council, at its first session had already defined the parameters of the review of mandates. The ongoing review of mandates was a separate inter-sessional process, allowing for the participation of all stakeholders. This feature was essential to a democratic and transparent process on the structures of the Council. The draft decision addressed the Working Group’s specific requests, which focussed on selective aspects, and this would undermine the holistic approach of the Working Group, and undermine the review. The resolution should be put to the vote, and the European Union would vote against it.

PAUL MEYER (Canada), speaking in a general comment, regretted that the draft tried to reopen the work of the Working Group without consensus. There had been insufficient consultation on the draft. With reference to a code of conduct, there was already a code a conduct, which had been approved by the General Assembly. Therefore, it would be redundant to add a new code of conduct. Canada urged the sponsors to withdraw the draft resolution. Otherwise, Canada would vote against the resolution.

GUILLERMO VALLES (Uruguay), in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said Uruguay was not against the mechanisms but believed that the initiatives taken to come out with a code of conduct should be debated on. An assessment should first be made with the instruments before the Council decided on the Special Procedures and on the independence of the mandate holders. If there would be vote on L.2/Rev.2, Uruguay would abstain.

ALBERTO J. DUMONT (Argentina), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said this issue was already part of the mechanisms being examined by the Working Group. Argentina was in favour of guaranteeing that the special mechanisms for oversight were as independent as possible so they could effectively monitor the standards that were within their purview. Were all the actors that were part of the human rights system to agree that there was a need for a code of conduct, then this should be agreed upon by the mandate holders. Argentina would therefore abstain from a vote on this decision.

LA YIFAN (China), in a general comment, welcomed the draft resolution. China said that it did not believe that the draft would constitute a prejudgment of the work of Working Group, as it asked the Working Group to review the draft manual and how to draft a code of conduct. Then, it would be up to the Working Group to develop a methodology of work. In addition, a code of conduct and a procedure manual would strengthen trust and confidence of Member States with the mechanisms of Special Procedures. China would vote in favour of the resolution.

JUAN ANTONIO FERNANDEZ PALACIOS (Cuba), in a general comment, said Cuba supported the adoption of resolutions by consensus in order to deal with the problem of politicization which the Council was suffering from. The code of conduct would contribute in defining transparent lines with regard to mandate holders. Cuba would vote in favour of the draft text L.2/Rev.1

ELIANA BERAUN (Peru), in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said the Working Group on the Review of the Mandates should contribute to consolidating the Special Procedures system so that it was perfected and streamlined. This resolution could prejudge the work of the Working Group that was examining the special mechanisms and procedures. Therefore, Peru would vote against the resolution.

GALO LARENAS SERRANO (Ecuador ), in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said that Ecuador supported the modalities on the protection of human rights, including the Special Procedures. Ecuador stressed that it was a draft code of conduct. It should not affect the independence of the mandate holders. Member States should discuss this draft code of conduct.

SERGIO ABREU E LIMA FLORENCIO (Brazil), speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said that as a country that had extended a permanent invitation to all mandate holders, Brazil attached great importance to such international mechanisms. The mandate holders should be provided with clear and transparent mandates in order to carry out their work properly. Brazil would support the code of conduct for those mechanisms with regard to the mandate holders. Brazil would participate in the elaboration of the code of conduct with the view that the mandate holders work harmoniously with States that extended open invitation to those instruments.

CARLOS RAMIRO MARTINEZ ALVARADO (Guatemala), speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said Guatemala considered that a code of conduct for the work of the Special Procedures would not by itself limit the independence of the Special Procedures. Guatemala, which had voted against the resolution, was sorry that there had had to be a vote.

Decision on Human Rights and Access to Water

In a decision (A/HRC/2/L.3/Rev.3) on human rights and access to water, adopted without a vote, the Council, taking note of the draft guidelines for the realization of the right to drinking water and sanitation contained in the report of the Special Rapporteur of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, requests the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, taking into account the views of States and other stakeholders, to conduct, within existing resources, a detailed study on the scope and content of the relevant human rights obligations related to equitable access to safe drinking water and sanitation under international human rights instruments, that includes relevant conclusions and recommendations thereon, to be submitted prior to the sixth session of the Council.

JUAN ANTONIO MARCH (Spain), in a general comment, said that it was vital for the Human Rights Council to adopt a new approach to human rights and the access to water. The right to access to water was linked to economic and social rights, as well as development. This right had not been so far tackled systematically and holistically. Hence, the importance of this draft decision before the Human Rights Council. It would be an important contribution to the work of the Human Rights Council, as it would help the Council to keep human beings at the centre of its work. Spain sponsored adopting resolutions and decisions aimed at promoting the dignity of human beings.

SWASHPAWAN SINGH (India), in a general comment, said the right to drinking water and sanitation was an extension of the main human rights. Access to drinking water and sanitation should be the main focus of the Council. There was an inconsistency between the heading and the content of the draft. However, India would go along with the present text.

SERGIO ABREU E LIMA FLORENCIO (Brazil), speaking in a general comment, said access to safe drinking water was fundamental to the full enjoyment of a number of internationally recognised human rights, including the rights to health, food, and an adequate standard of living. This was a solid reference to allow States to guarantee access to their populations to drinking water and sanitation.

IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria), in a general comment, said that the focus of the draft decision was on equity with reference to access to water. It was important to have as much access to drinking water as possible vis-à-vis the allocation of water usage. The Human Rights Council should also look at the North-South divide in terms of access to water. Algeria thanked all those delegations working towards bridging that gap, bearing in mind the concept of equity.

MUSTAFIZUR RAHMAN (Bangladesh), in a general comment, said the right to drinking water was a fundamental right that should be sustained by all means. The General Comment 15 on the right to water, adopted by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, should be upheld. Water should be used in an equitable manner in all countries in order to uphold the needs of everyone. Bangladesh would support the study that would be carried out with regard to access to water.

TEHMINA JANJUA (Pakistan), in a general comment, said this was an important initiative. Water was a limited natural resource, and vital for the human rights right to water, which was indispensable for living a life in dignity. It stood for the most fundamental right - the right to life. Recently there had been a denial of this right in many parts of the world, with continuing contamination, depletion and denial of water that exacerbated poverty. The possibility of water being a source of future conflicts should be taken into account - water should never be used as a coercive measure in international politics. The co-sponsors were thanked for this useful initiative.

JOSEPH U. AYALOGU (Nigeria), in a general comment, said that Nigeria was pleased that the draft decision reflected the consensus opinion of the Human Rights Council. The right to water, in addition to being a human right, was a moral obligation of the highest order of States and other actors to guarantee access to drinking water to as many people as possible. Nigeria also underlined the link between the right to water and the right to life. It called upon the Human Rights Council to adopt the decision without a vote.

LOVE MTESA (Zambia), in a general comment, said that since water was life, Zambia would support the resolution even if it were not put to a vote.

SUNU SOEMARNO (Indonesia), in a general comment, said the text covered some very important human rights issues which affected many. The transparency and flexibility shown by the main co-sponsors was appreciated, especially when taking into account the various views, making the text more focussed and balanced, and Indonesia was pleased to join consensus on this matter.

ALBERTO J. DUMONT (Argentina), in a general comment, said that Argentina endorsed the provisions of the human rights treaties, including the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The provisions included in these treaties had become the main pillars at the constitutional level in Argentina since reforms undertaken in 1994. The study that would follow the adoption of this decision should look into access to water as a human right, guaranteeing access to drinking water by all.

Resolution on Human Rights and Extreme Poverty

In a resolution (A/HRC/2/L.4/Rev.2) on human rights and extreme poverty, adopted without a vote, the Council, taking note of the draft guiding principles on extreme poverty and human rights: the rights of the poor, annexed to Sub-Commission for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights resolution 2006/9 of 24 August 2006, requests the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to circulate the draft guiding principles, in order to obtain the views of States, relevant United Nations agencies, intergovernmental organizations, United Nations treaty bodies, Special Procedures including the Independent Expert on the question of human rights and extreme poverty, national human rights institutions, non-governmental organizations, especially those in which people in situations of extreme poverty express their views, and other relevant stakeholders, and to report to the Council at its seventh session.

IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria), in a general comment, said that extreme poverty was being perpetrated by the current international structure. That injustice had to be rectified. The greater injustice was materialized by the exclusion of the vulnerable groups such as women. The subject of extreme poverty should be brought up to the forefront and the gap should be closed. Algeria thanked the sponsors for bringing the issue to light.

ENRIQUE MANALO (Philippines), in a general comment, said this initiative was welcomed, as it would bring the Council closer to taking steps for alleviating extreme poverty. The increase in the number of co-sponsors was appreciated. The objectives of the resolution dogtailed very well with the Philippines’ objectives with regards to alleviation of poverty and extreme poverty. It was hoped that the resolution would be adopted by consensus.

MUSTAFIZUR RAHMAN ( Bangladesh), in a general comment, said that extreme poverty constituted a violation of human dignity, and eroded economic and social rights as well as political and civil rights. The Millennium Development Goals pledged to eradicate extreme poverty. Strategies at the country level would be more efficient, taking into account Bangladesh’s own experience, if main actors were fully involved. Bangladesh would support the draft resolution.

Resolution on Human Rights in the Occupied Syrian Golan

In a resolution (A/HRC/2/L.5/Rev.1) on human rights in the occupied Syrian Golan, adopted as orally amended by a vote of 32 in favour, one against, and 14 abstentions, the Council calls upon Israel, the occupying power, to comply with the relevant resolutions of the General Assembly and of the Security Council, in particular resolution 497 (1981); also calls upon Israel to desist from changing the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure and legal status of the occupied Syrian Golan, and emphasizes that the displaced persons of the population of the occupied Syrian Golan must be allowed to return to their homes and to recover their property; further calls upon Israel to desist from imposing Israeli citizenship and Israeli identity cards on the Syrian citizens in the occupied Syrian Golan, and to desist from its repressive measures against them and from all other practices mentioned in the report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories; and determines that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken or to be taken by Israel, the occupying Power, that purport to alter the character and legal status of the occupied Syrian Golan are null and void, constitute a flagrant violation of international law and of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and have no legal effect.


The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour (32): Algeria, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brazil, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Ecuador, Gabon, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Tunisia, Uruguay and Zambia.

Against (1): Canada.

Abstentions (14): Cameroon, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Guatemala, Japan, Netherlands, Poland, Republic of Korea, Romania, Switzerland, United Kingdom, and Ukraine.


ABDULLA ABDULLATIF ABDULLA (Bahrain), in a general comment, and speaking on behalf of the Arab Group, said the Arab Group supported the draft resolution and called on others to do the same.

KHALIT BITAR (Syria), speaking as a concerned country, said the draft resolution was about human rights in the Occupied Syrian Golan and violations of human rights of citizens in the Golan, including civil and political rights, and economic, social and cultural rights, all of which were enshrined in international human rights instruments. These violations began with the occupation by Israel of the Syrian Golan in 1967. There was a decision in 1981 to annex the Golan, imposing Israeli administration and law on the Golan, and this brought to light the intention of Israel to occupy or annex the Golan. This was refused by the international community and the Security Council adopted a resolution considering this step to be null and void. Nevertheless, Israel continued a deliberate policy of "Judaicisation" of the area, changing the Arab Syrian identity of the people of the region. Israel had also proceeded to large-scale arrests, torture and imprisonment, and continued to refuse to specify the places where it had put anti-personnel mines. Israel was committing these crimes far from the eye of the international community, and had refused to receive the special commission on Israeli practices concerning the rights of the Arab peoples in the Occupied Territories. Israel would not stop these violations until it stopped the occupation. The resolution should be adopted by consensus, in keeping with the objectives of the Council.

ITZHAK LEVANON (Israel), speaking as a concerned country, said that given the amount of work the Human Rights Council had to undertake in the coming days, it was sad that this draft resolution was diverting the attention of the Council. The Six-Day War was initiated by Syria. The description given by Syria of the Golan gave the impression that the Golan was now a desolate land. This was far from true, as the economy was booming and everybody was enjoying human rights and also profiting from the economic vitality of the region. Syria had rejected on several opportunities the efforts of Israel to a peaceful settlement of the question. Syria’s malevolent behaviour showed in its support of radical terrorists organizations such as Hezbollah and Hamas. Syria had used methods to undermine democratic systems. Israel urged all delegations to vote against this resolution.

TEHMINA JANJUA (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), said that based on the discussion that had taken place in the room, operative paragraph 7 of the draft should be amended so that it could be adopted by consensus. The OIC wished for the draft to be adopted by consensus.

TERRY CORMIER (Canada), in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said the Council was not an appropriate forum to discuss this issue. There were serious reservations with regards to the resolution, which did not reflect a balanced assessment of human rights in the region, and did not recognise all victims of the conflict. Canada therefore requested a vote and would vote against the resolution.

TAPANI KIVELA (Finland), in an explanation of the vote before the vote on behalf of the European Union, welcomed the amendment to operative paragraph 7, and also welcomed the constructive dialogue with Syria. Finland said that the European Union would abstain on this draft resolution on account on existing concerns over the text.

Decision on Right to the Truth

In a decision on the right to the truth (A/HRC/2/L.6/Rev.1), adopted without a vote, the Council, recalling Commission on Human Rights resolution 2005/66 of 20 April 2005 and taking note of the study on the right to truth prepared by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (E/CN.4/2006/91), decided to request the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to prepare a follow-up report on the study on the right to the truth, which should include best national and international practices, in particular legislative, administrative or any other measures, as well as individual and societal dimensions of that right, taking into account the views of States and relevant intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations, to be examined at its fifth session in June 2007.

Decision on Incompatibility between Democracy and Racism

In a decision on incompatibility between democracy and racism (A/HRC/2/L.7/Rev.2), adopted without a vote, the Council adopted the following text: “The Human Rights Council invites the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, in collaboration with the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, to continue to analyse further the issue of incitement and promotion of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance in the politic debate; and requests the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, within his mandate, when submitting his report to the Council at any session after its fourth session, to include the issue of political participation and representation of groups that are vulnerable to racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance in the decision-making process in national Governments, parties, parliaments and civil society in general, taking into consideration their possible contribution to reinforcing the anti-discrimination perspective in political and social life with a view to strengthening democracy.”

IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria), in a general comment, said Algeria would support the draft with a slight amendment to the last line of the third paragraph by adding “..religion and other intolerance as well as incitement to the political debate”.

SERGIO ABREU E LIMA FLORENCIO (Brazil), in a general comment, said that it had difficulties with the proposed amendment made by Algeria. There had been discussions on the draft, and some of supporters had already said that they would have some difficulties on accepting the suggested amendment made by Algeria. Algeria was asked to not present the amendment for this reason.

TEHMINA JANJUA (Pakistan), in a general comment, thanked Brazil for this comprehensive draft, and also for the way the consultations were undertaken. Pakistan said with reference to the proposal made by Algeria, it understood the difficulty of adding those comments now to the draft on account of the number of delegations that were involved in the consultations. Nevertheless, Pakistan asked that the Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance should take into account the special concerns expressed by Algeria. Pakistan hoped that taking into account the proposal by Algeria would further contribute to the draft resolution presented by Brazil.

Decision on Access to Medication in the Context of Pandemics

In a decision on access to medication in the context of pandemics such as
HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria (A/HRC/2/L.8/Rev.2), adopted without a vote, the Council requests the Secretary-General, when submitting his report to the Human Rights Council at any session after its fourth session, based on consultations with Governments, United Nations organs, programmes, specialized agencies, intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations and private sector, to include a study on the exploration of new and innovative financing mechanisms, bearing in mind the existing ones, which can help to improve the access to medication that fight those pandemics, from the perspective of human rights; and also requests the Secretary-General, when submitting his report to the Human Rights Council at any session after its fourth session, taking into consideration the discussions carried out in the WHO Intergovernmental Working Group on Public Health, Innovation, Essential Health Research and Intellectual Property Rights and in consultations with Governments, United Nations organs, programmes, specialized agencies, intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations and private sector, to include an assessment of the impacts of intellectual property rights on access to medication in the context of pandemics such as HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria from the perspective of human rights.

Decision on the Right to Health

In a decision on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest
attainable standard of physical and mental health (A/HRC/2/L.9/Rev.2), adopted without a vote, the Council recalls all resolutions concerning the realization of the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health adopted by the Commission on Human Rights; and requests the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, within his existing mandate, when presenting his report to the Human Rights Council at any session after its fourth session on the realization of the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, to include the possibility of identifying and exploring, bearing in mind the level of development of countries and from the perspective of the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, the key features of an effective, integrated and accessible health system.

Decision on Effects on Economic Reform Policies on Human Rights

In a decision (A/HRC/2/L.17) on effects of economic reform policies and foreign debt on the full enjoyment of all human rights, adopted by a vote of 33 in favour, 13 against, and one abstention, the Council decided to request the High Commissioner for Human Rights to convene an Expert Consultation to discuss the proposed draft general guidelines and to invite the international financial institutions, notably the World Bank and the IMF, as well as regional developments banks, relevant United Nations agencies and national experts and stakeholders to contribute to the consultations.


The results of the vote was as follows:

In favour (33): Algeria, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brazil, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Ecuador, Gabon, Ghana, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Tunisia, Uruguay, and Zambia.

Against (13): Canada, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Netherlands, Poland, Republic of Korea, Romania, Switzerland, United Kingdom, and Ukraine.

Abstentions (1): Peru.


HIROSHI MINAMI (Japan), in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said Japan believed that the Council was not an appropriate forum for such a resolution. Such issues should not concern the newly established Council. There were other platforms where such an issue should be dealt with. Japan was convinced that the subject presented in the Council was not acceptable. Japan, therefore, would vote against the draft text.

JOHANNA SUURPAA (Finland), speaking on behalf of the European Union in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said the European Union was not against discussing the effects of economic reform and foreign debt. However, these issues went beyond the competence and expertise of the Human Rights Council, and in consequence were better dealt with in other fora. There were serious concerns with the request to ask the High Commissioner to convene a meeting to discuss guidelines, as this infringed upon the competence of other organizations and bodies, and also prejudged the outcome of the work of the Working Group on the OP6. The issues of economic reform policies and foreign debt would be discussed in other fora, and for these reasons, the European Union and the acceding countries that were members of the Human Rights Council, including Romania, would vote against this resolution.

Decision on Integrity of the Judicial System

In a decision (A/HRC/2/L.20) on integrity of the judicial system, adopted without a vote, the Council decided to ask the Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers to take full account of the relevant resolutions on the issue of administration of justice through military tribunals of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights in the discharge of his mandate and in his report to the fourth session of the Council.

For use of the information media; not an official record

HRC06066E