HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL HEARS PRAISE AND CRITICISM ABOUT ADOPTED TEXT ON INSTITUTION BUILDING OF COUNCIL
The Human Rights Council this afternoon elected the new President and officers of the Bureau of the Council for its second cycle and then heard both praise and criticism from speakers about the President’s text on the institution building of the Council which was agreed upon at midnight yesterday.
The Council began the meeting by hearing a brief statement by the outgoing President, Ambassador Luis Alfonso de Alba of Mexico. It then elected by acclamation Ambassador Doru Romulus Costea of Romania as the new President of the Council. Four Vice-Presidents were also elected: Guillermo Valles Galmes of Uruguay, Mohamed-Siad Doualeh of Djibouti, Boudewijin Van Eenennaaam of the Netherlands, and Dayan Jayathilake of Sri Lanka. Mr. Galmes was also elected as Rapporteur.
In his opening statement, Mr. Costea said the Council had come a long way, but much remained to be done in the search for the best way to turn ideas into facts on the ground. The new mechanisms and institutions would offer tremendous possibilities in the field of the promotion and protection of human rights. The Council would need to work in the coming days on the creation of an efficient Universal Periodic Review mechanism, negotiate rationalization of the Special Procedures and start the selection of mandate holders and election of the Advisory Committee. The second year of the Council was of paramount importance. The strength of the Council lay in the commitment to interdependent, indivisible rights, and the commitment to working together to harness collective efforts towards a universal respect of human rights.
After Canada raised a point of order saying that the President of the Council had said at midnight yesterday that the Council would take action today on the President’s text on the institution building of the Council, the Council held a vote as to whether the Council could proceed on the necessary follow-up on the text. In a roll-call vote with 46 in favour and one against (Canada), the Council agreed to continue follow-up.
Speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote was the representative of Canada.
Providing general statements were Algeria on behalf of the African Group, China, Germany on behalf of the European Union, United Kingdom, Pakistan for the Organization of the Islamic conference, Bangladesh, Cuba, United States, Pakistan, Morocco, Sri Lanka, India, Switzerland, France, Russian Federation, Uruguay, Chile, Azerbaijan, Japan, Argentina, Brazil, and Israel.
Most speakers stressed that the President’s text was a compromise text, which might not completely satisfy all of everyone’s needs, but was a good basis to start the work of the Council. There was praise noted for the Universal Periodic Review, and mixed feelings expressed about abolishing the country mandates on the situation of human rights in Belarus and Cuba, and keeping the country mandate on the situation of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories.
The next meeting of the Council will be held at 10 a.m. on Wednesday 20 June, when it will continue to discuss the Presidential text on institution building in the Council which lays out the basic structure for the Council's new institutional machinery, including the Universal Periodic Review mechanism, the Special Procedures, the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee, and the Complaint Procedure. It also sets out an agenda and framework for a programme of work, and lays down the Rules of Procedure for the Council.
Opening Statements
LUIS ALFONSO DE ALBA (Mexico), Provisional President of the Council, said this afternoon a new era was beginning for the Human Rights Council. All had worked intensively in recent days, and were exhausted. Yesterday, in his capacity as President, he had prepared a few words with some personal words as to what had been achieved. He intended to circulate the copy of that statement to all. However, he wished to repeat his personal thanks, and very sincere thanks to High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour, as well as the Director-General of the United Nations Office at Geneva, Sergei Ordzhonikidze.
DORU ROMULUS COSTEA (Romania), Newly-elected President of the Human Rights Council, said the creation of new mechanisms like the Universal Periodic Review, and the reinforcement of Special Procedures, showed that 60 years after the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights there was full engagement among Member States of the United Nations in the process of building a new body dedicated to engineering the shift from values and rights towards effective implementation. Victims of human rights abuses around the world would judge the international community by its willingness to transform ideas into action. In the words of George Eliot, “between the idea / and the reality / Between the motion / And the act / Falls the Shadow”. This darkness should not stand in the way. The Council had come a long way, but much remained to be done in the search for the best way to turn ideas into facts on the ground. The new mechanisms and institutions would offer tremendous possibilities in the field of the promotion and protection of human rights. He agreed with the High Commissioner’s assertion that the Human Rights Council was uniquely positioned to redress the shortcomings of the past.
Mr. Costea declared his commitment to making the new mechanisms work, and looked forward to constructive contributions from non-governmental organizations, national human rights institutions and all stakeholders in a spirit of openness and mutual respect. The Council would need to work in the coming days on the creation of an efficient Universal Periodic Review mechanism, negotiate rationalization of the Special Procedures and start the selection of mandate holders and the election process of the Advisory Committee. The second year of the Council was of paramount importance. In the days to come, the Council needed to start working on the creation of an efficient Universal Periodic Review mechanism, negotiations had to be concluded on the rationalization of the Special Procedures and the selection of the new mandate holders. There was also a need to start the election process for the new Advisory Committee. The strength of the Council lay in the commitment to interdependent, indivisible rights, and the commitment to working together to harness collective efforts towards a universal respect of human rights. He called for a focus on true dialogue in pursuit of the Council’s objectives, and on the sensitive and urgent issues of human rights wherever they occurred.
Vote
After Canada raised a point of order saying that the President of the Council had said at midnight yesterday that the Council would take action today on the President’s text on the institution building of the Council, the Council held a vote as to whether the Council could proceed on the necessary follow-up on the text. In a roll-call vote with 46 in favour and one against (Canada), the Council agreed to continue follow-up.
The result of the vote was as follows:
In favour (46): Algeria, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brazil, Cameroon, Czech Republic, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Ecuador, Finland, France, Gabon, Germany, Ghana, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Japan, Jordan, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, Tunisia, United Kingdom, Ukraine, Uruguay, and Zambia.
Against (1): Canada
Explanation of the Vote after the Vote
TERRY CORMIER (Canada) said in establishing the Council, the General Assembly had set out its guiding principles. These included universality, impartiality and non-selectivity. Canada therefore regretted the inclusion in the agenda of one situation for selective treatment, that of the situation in the occupied Palestinian territory and Israel. This inclusion was due to a politicised approach. While not perfect, there were many positive elements in the proposed package, however, Canada could not agree to a package which contained an item so clearly contradictory to the principles under which the Council was founded. The text also failed to renew and subject to review only the mandates on Cuba and Belarus, both situations that clearly warranted continued scrutiny by country-specific mandates.
General Statements
IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria), speaking on behalf of the African Group, said as with all consensus texts, the President’s text was not without ambiguity. No Universal Periodic Review mechanism could oblige a State to account for the implementation of recommendations or any other engagement to which it had not subscribed in the context of a treaty to which it was party or in the context of the Universal Periodic Review. A long way remained to go to ensure the full flowering of human rights in Africa as in other places, but the continent was fully dedicated to that path. Africa wanted to be one of the artisans of the common future of humanity in the field of human rights. No one had a monopoly on compassion.
It had been wished that the Council become truly humanity’s conscience, and no longer be a place for confrontation between developed and developing countries. Thus, the African Group had decided to take initiatives to make the Council a mechanism in the service of not only certain powers, but a common cause for all. The African Group welcomed the unanimous adoption of its project for a Code of Conduct. Africa had worked for the Council to give to all States the same feeling of being an important part with regards to decision-making, to make the Council become the vessel for those shared values which defined the common humanity of the members. The closer States could identify themselves with the Council and its mechanisms, the closer they would be bound by its recommendations.
CHENG JINGYE (China) said that the text was not perfect but represented the maximum common understanding of all sides. China had participated constructively and flexibly in the discussion. To prevent selectivity and double standards and to safeguard the credibility of the Council, China had put forward the proposal on country specific mandates. The Council had laid a good foundation for the execution of its work.
MICHAEL STEINER (Germany), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said a decisive step had been taken in the common effort to reform the key organ for the protection and promotion of human rights of the United Nations. The task given by the General Assembly was to design the appropriate architecture for the Council to live up to its responsibilities. Given the divergent views of the various delegations, it was quite a significant achievement that consensus had been reached on how the Council should look in the future.
Clearly, this consensus agreement was a compromise. The European Union was not completely satisfied with the result, but was of the view that an acceptable result had been produced, which had potential. The European Union would have wished to retain all existing mandates, but it did not wish to retain the selectivity of the former Commission. The issue of the situation of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territory should not have been selected to remain in the agenda. The Universal Periodic Review should be of added value. The document had been accepted under the understanding that it was the final step in regulating the work of the Special Procedures. This was an encouraging sigh for the future work of the Council.
NICHOLAS THORNE (United Kingdom) said that though the United Kingdom would have wished for stronger measures in some areas, the overall package realized the measures set out in Resolution 60/251, and was a platform to build on. The Universal Periodic Review was the Council’s real innovation but it should be more than just a paper exercise. The United Kingdom looked forward to dialogue with all States to identify and cover protection gaps. The programme of work should get away from the selectivity of the earlier period.
It was regretted that one situation was singled out among all others. While there were serious concerns over the situation in the occupied Palestinian territories, there were situations throughout the world in which ordinary people were suffering at the hands of their governments. The United Kingdom did not accept the concept of collective human rights in international law. It was disappointing that two, in particular, of the mandates had not been renewed. The Human Rights Council must now work to deliver an effective and responsive programme.
TEHMINA JANJUA (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), registered the OIC's gratitude to former President Luis Alfonso de Alba for his tireless efforts to achieve a consensus on the institution building of the Council. In particular, the implementation of the Universal Periodic Review was expected to be a new beginning in the Council's work. It had to remain a multi-governmental process, and it had to maintain the equal treatment of all States. The Universal Periodic Review also had to be a cooperative process, which involved the States to be reviewed intimately in the decision-making process, and thus holding States accountable only to recommendations they had signed off on. Speaking on the agenda and programme of work identified in the text, the OIC especially appreciated the item on the occupied Palestinian territories and on racism and racial discrimination. The OIC thanked all delegations for the level of flexibility and cooperation demonstrated in the institution-building exercise and supported the package, which represented a way forward for the Council.
TOUFIQ ALI (Bangladesh) said in the early years of the Council, the President played a very important role. The journey towards institutional reform had begun in the General Assembly. One year had been allocated for the task. The Council had been late in taking this up, and had had to back load the negotiations to very late stages. On the Universal Periodic Review, it should be a cooperative mechanism with the State being reviewed, and the outcome being based on consensus. To improve the much-abused system of Special Procedures, the mandate holders should be accountable to the Council. The Council should be a strong institutional footing, with its own Secretariat. Without implementation, the Council would be incomplete, and it was hoped this would be taken up soon.
HSU KING BEE (Malaysia) said Council members should work together to make the Council more credible and less politicized. Constructive cooperation was needed in moving towards the implementation phase of institution building. The Universal Periodic Review would be a core aspect of the Council’s work, a forum for constructive dialogue and cooperation and an avenue for promoting best practice and better understanding. Adoption of the mandate holders’ Code of Conduct was a significant contribution to the Special Procedures system. Malaysia underlined that the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in Palestine as reflected in Annex 1 remained valid. On country mandates, Malaysia had consistently supported efforts to adopt more stringent requirements to establish these, and supported China’s initiative.
JUAN ANTONIO FERNÁNDEZ PALACIOS (Cuba) said that the agreement reached today marked the achievement of the end of the country mandate in Cuba, a tool the main enemy of international cooperation and human rights around the world had tried to use as a pretext for its policy of blockades and genocide against Cuba. However, Cuba wished to register its deep regret that mandates on other countries of the south had been maintained. On other issues, Cuba commended China for the work it undertook to enhance the Council's methods of work. Cuba had also always given its support to the just cause of the Palestinians, suffering under an unjust occupation. However, the attention to that situation was insufficient, and it did require an item under the agenda. As for Canada, and other delegations who had shown their anti-Cuban feelings, those were the hypocrites who were in favour of the imperialistic incursions of Bush. They had carried out acts of torture and bombardment on civilian populations. Today was a day of victory for Cuba. In the words of Fidel Castro: "you will never hold Cuba back".
WARREN W. TICHENOR (United States) said there was grave concern for the actions taken over the last 24 hours in the Council. The United States had believed that the Council would take substantive action on the package today. On the package that was now the basis of the work of the Council, the United States cautioned that a biased permanent agenda item on the occupied Palestinian territory and the arbitrary elimination of two mandates raised serious questions as to the impartiality of the Council, and whether it would take seriously its mandate to protect and promote human rights across the world.
TEHMINA JANJUA (Pakistan) said Pakistan was one of the first supporters of the Universal Periodic Review and there was a need to work together to make it an impartial and cooperative mechanism. The right to self-determination was the bedrock on which the edifice of international human rights was based. This was a fundamental right and principle, one that had empowered millions of people, and Pakistan would like to see the Human Rights Council offer a genuine and universal hope to all those under foreign occupation. Pakistan understood that item 3 of the agenda provided the framework for the right to self-determination. Pakistan underscored that selectivity and bias would be harmful to the Council and looked forward to successful outcomes.
MOHAMMED LOULICHKI (Morocco) welcomed the adoption of the institution-building text and the Code of Conduct, which had been an African initiative. It was only regrettable that the Council had had to resort to a vote on this common endeavour that had been worked on for so many months. The Council had an authentic, well-balanced, fully considered consensus. It should not be forgotten, however, that the proof was in the implementation of that consensus. Morocco would remain an active participant in the work of the Council.
DAYAN JAYATHILAKE (Sri Lanka), speaking on behalf of the Asian Group, said there was deep appreciation and gratitude for the work of President Luis Alfonso de Alba, who would be remembered as a founding father of the Council. The hard work of the facilitators had contributed towards laying the foundation of the outcome of the present text. Although the Asian Group had some concerns with regards to the content of the text, it had participated in the negotiations with the aim of moving forward constructively. There had been a spirit of sacrifice in this regard, in particular from China. The Asian Group would support the Council and the Bureau with regards to the protection and promotion of human rights in all parts of the world. The new Council should take a new approach in this regard, and this should be based on the principles of cooperation and genuine dialogue.
SWASHPAWAN SINGH (India) said that progress in institution building reaffirmed the centrality of dialogue and the fact that the Council could adopt difficult decisions by consensus augured well for the future. The Council should work to further enhance its ability to fulfill its mandate. A number of issues were to be addressed, notably the operationalisation of the Universal Periodic Review system, and the review of thematic mandates. India welcomed the African Group’s proposed Code of Conduct for mandate holders and remained engaged to working with the Council in a constructive manner.
BLAISE GODET (Switzerland) said the final document on institution building was a balanced text, as it was the result of concessions made by each and every Council Member. It was a holistic text, and an acceptable compromise that Switzerland supported. It would finally allow the Council to pursue its mandate to promote and protect human rights around the world, in accordance with its mandate. Switzerland regretted, however, that the Independent Expert part of the Universal Periodic Review Mechanism had not been integrated into that text. Despite reservations on the Code of Conduct, Switzerland had finally aligned itself with the consensus on that document. The Code of Conduct should contribute to healthy cooperation between States and mandate holders. It was now a closed chapter, and it was for the mandate holders themselves to carry out their work.
JEAN-MAURICE RIPERT (France) said the decision taken today was welcomed, but the conditions under which it was taken were regretted. The European Union had spared no effort in giving an instrument of dialogue and cooperation to the Council, as well as undeniable legitimacy. The victims of human rights violations expected a lot of the Council, and it should be in a position, in a cooperative process, to achieve true universal dialogue and effective cooperation in the service of rights and duties. It was now up to all Member States to use the instruments correctly. An unbalanced agenda could be avoided by the mechanism allowing for pointing out any human rights violation in any State. The Code of Conduct should not be an excuse to limit the movements or perspectives of the Special Procedures. The support of the High Commissioner, experts of national institutions and well as non-governmental organizations would be of value to the Council. The implementation of the work of the Council was not over - it had barely started. It was time to carry out effective work to meet the needs of protection of victims, among others.
OLEG MALGINOV (Russian Federation) said the outcome document on institution building was a product of hard fought compromise. The Russian Federation had striven to make the work of the Human Rights Council be based on objectivity, impartiality, neutrality and non-selectivity. It had endeavoured to make the Council a core instrument in the human rights system, free of manipulation and politicization.
The delegation was satisfied that the Council would develop its own institutions and mechanisms, and welcomed the Code of Conduct, and urged clarity and openness on the Universal Periodic Review, Special Procedures and confidentiality. Human rights were the responsibility of States. Cooperation, dialogue and trust were key aspects of international community participation, and would develop as the Council entered its next stage.
ALEJANDRO ARTUCCIO (Uruguay) said that in adopting the two documents today – on institution building and on a Code of Conduct for Rapporteurs and Experts – the Council had concluded an extremely important stage. The Council now had the machinery to function, and had clearly spelled out that the key aim of that functioning was the promotion and protection of human rights. Uruguay, which considered human rights and fundamental freedoms as a priority of its social policy, welcomed the fact that it had taken part in drafting those documents. Like many delegations, Uruguay had not been able to achieve everything it had wished in those texts, but Uruguay was satisfied with what had been achieved.
JUAN MARTABIT (Chile) said the document on institution building had many merits, and provided a basis for the Council to open up this new stage. The Universal Periodic Review was the heart of the new system, and it would be the role of the Council to open this up in a constructive way. There was a need for caution and vigilance to avoid any type of politicisation which could arise in any disproportionate fashion. What had happened in the past with regards to politicisation should be avoided. The protection and promotion of human rights should have one focus. The President of Chile had said to the Council that the work of the Special Rapporteurs and their presence had always be crucial and decisive to save lives, and to give a ray of hope to those suffering in the worst stages of desperation. It was hoped that the system being implemented today would strengthen what had been achieved in the past.
ELCHIN AMIRBAYOV (Azerbaijan) said a long and intensive consultative process lay behind the package now on offer. The significance of the outcome for the future of human rights and the Council itself could hardly be overestimated. The consensus reached as a result of a spirit of collegiality would hopefully strengthen the culture of decision making and provided well for the credibility of the Council. The proposals on institution building formed a balanced, comprehensive and forward-looking document.
ICHIRO FUJISAKI (Japan) said today marked an historic achievement in the Council. Japan thanked everyone involved, all the facilitators of the agreement, but singled out especially the skill and leadership of Ambassador Luis Alfonso de Alba, without whom Members would not have achieved what they had today. Now they had an institution in their hands. It might not be perfect, but it should now be utilized and operationalized as best it could to promote and protect the human rights situation around the world. What was most important was that the Council address without delay human rights situations around the world that deserved its attention. The Council was responsible to all those people who were longing for its attention.
SERGIO CERDA (Argentina) said with regards to the Universal Periodic Review, it would have been preferred had its modalities been included elsewhere, but Argentina had accepted for the time being that advice be provided by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. It would also have been suggested that civil society played a greater role in all of the review. After five years, the role of Experts should be reviewed and adjusted correspondingly. The gender perspective should be included in all the work of the Council. It was important to maintain the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Belarus. On the selection of mandate holders, the participation of civil society should have been greater. The compromise text was the fruit of dialogue and cooperation among delegations.
SERGIO DE ABREU E LIMA FLORENCIO (Brazil) said two important aspects of the Universal Periodic Review were expressed in the text: openness to all, and the principle of cooperative process. Discussion on the role of mandate holders had appeared divisive, and the formula found in the President’s text had proven that both views were equally legitimate, and not incompatible. Each of the Council’s Member States had provided a contribution to transforming ideas into realities. The Code of Conduct on mandate holders was a balanced and useful contribution. This moment was a turning point. The institution now had a solid framework; pillars, doors and windows. He called for strong pillars to support the Council’s mandate, doors open to inclusiveness, and wide windows to the future.
ITZHAK LEVANON (Israel) said that the surreal moments witnessed during yesterday's and today's deliberations in the Council were symptomatic of the Council as a whole. For the past year, they had listened to seeming endless pledges that the Council had to do away with the vestiges of the defunct Commission on Human Rights. But last night, they had welcomed back the resuscitated Commission. What the Council had seen yesterday was a consensus, a consensus across the board that the Council was completely politicized from the outset. The agenda within the document included one item that purported to consider the promotion and protection of all human rights in the world, but then also contained an item that curiously selected one situation for heightened consideration above all others. That did not further the principles of universality, non-selectivity and objectivity. The same was true for the section on review of mandates, which laid out criteria under which the Council was to evaluate all mandates, save for one specific item. Perhaps what they should adopt today was a name change to this body, the Politicized Human Rights Council, to reflect its true nature. The world had entrusted them with creating an impartial, non-selective and universal body to examine human rights. They had failed to do that. What they had reached was a political compromise and not an authentic reform. Israel rejected the paper before the Council, in sum and in detail, because it perpetuated the immoral fixation on Israel.
__________
For use of information media; not an official record