HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL DISCUSSES HUMAN RIGHTS BODIES AND MECHANISMS AND UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW

The Human Rights Council this morning held a general debate on its agenda items on human rights bodies and mechanisms as well as the Universal Periodic Review.

In the general debate, speakers raised a number of issues, including that it was crucial not to reopen the institution-building document, and the Council should now focus on its implementation; the Working Group on minorities had provided an important opportunity for dialogue and the practice should continue allowing a wider range of stakeholders to contribute; the appointment of a Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of slavery was supported; the initiative to create a Forum on Minority Issues to replace the Working Group on Minorities was welcomed and its work would provide the Council with an opportunity for more intensive cooperation with the UN Independent Expert on minorities; and the contemporary forms of slavery issue should be transformed into a Special Procedure.

On the Universal Periodic Review, delegations said that comprehensive and detailed guidance was necessary on this issue; cooperation with regional and international frameworks for human rights protection was important; the willingness of some countries to submit voluntarily was welcomed; it should not duplicate the work of treaty bodies; technical and financial support was requested for countries; it should be a very open and transparent process, with a clear road map on the implementation and status of implementation; and there was still no clear idea of the form and content of compilations and the extent of coverage.

Speaking this morning were the representatives of Portugal on behalf of the European Union, Slovenia, Africa on behalf the African Group, Nigeria, Hungary, Ireland, Finland, Ethiopia, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Latvia and Switzerland.

Also speaking were the International Service for Human Rights, Amnesty International, Minority Rights Group International, on behalf of severals NGOs1 , Indian Council of South America, Association of World Citizens, International Indian Treaty Council, Indian Movement “Tupaj Amaru”, on behalf of World Peace Council, Juridical Commission for Auto-Development of First Andean Peoples (CAPAJ), Shimin Gaikou Centre (Citizens' Diplomatic Centre For The Rights Of Indigenous Peoples), Action Canada for Population and Development, European Union of Public Relations, Foundation for Aboriginal and Islander Research Action, International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs, Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, on behalf of Colombian Commission of Jurists; International Movement against all Forms of Discrimination and Racism; and Baha'i International Community, International Federation of Human Rights Leagues (FIDH), and International Indian Treaty Council.

At the end of this morning meeting, the Council resumed its open-ended informal consultations and will continue them when it reconvenes this afternoon at 3 p.m.

Document

The Council has before it the letter dated 31 August 2007 from the High Commissioner on National Minorities of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), addressed to the President of the Human Rights Council (A/HRC/6/9), on the issue of human rights bodies and mechanisms, which notes that the Working Group on minorities has been providing the only forum at the United Nations level dedicated to minority matters, and urges the Human Rights Council to consider establishing a successor mechanism which will be able to build upon the achievements of the Working Group.

General Debate on Human Rights Bodies and Mechanisms, and Universal Periodic Review

ANA VALENTE (Portugal), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the European Union had, during the first year of the Council, worked hard together with all delegations and groups of delegations in a spirit of cooperation, dialogue and constructiveness to achieve consensual outcomes for the institution-building process. Nevertheless, some challenges remained. It was crucial not to reopen the institution-building document, and the Council should now focus on its implementation. Regarding the technical and objective requirements for the submission of candidatures to the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee, it was the view of the European Union that the definition of the criteria should ensure that the candidates were truly independent. As far as the criteria for Special Procedures’ mandate holders was concerned, the European Union believed that criteria would only serve a purpose if they produced a public list composed of independent, human rights-oriented, and highly-qualified experts. On the Working Group on communications, there should be no gap and it should be ensured that victims could raise their voices and have their pledges timely and effectively addressed by a victim-oriented complaint mechanism.

EVA TOMIC (Slovenia) said there was now the task of putting into place the major aspects of the Universal Periodic Review, a mechanism for enhancing human rights obligations and commitments. It would be a process that would improve based on lessons learned. But the mechanism must begin with a solid basis – a comprehensive review of the human rights system in all countries. Objective and reliable information would be the cornerstone, and guidelines should respect the principles for the Universal Periodic Review set out in the institution-building document. Comprehensive and detailed guidance was necessary, and the Universal Periodic Review would demand concrete and substantiated information that would provide an outlook on the human rights situation in the country under review. Cooperation with regional and international frameworks for human rights protection was important. It was also important to have a decision on the Guidelines as soon as possible in the programme to allow early implementation and timely results. While all States would be submitted to the Universal Periodic Review over the next four years, the willingness of some countries to submit voluntarily was welcomed.

OMAR SHALABY (Egypt), speaking on behalf of the African Group, said the African Group believed that the success of the Human Rights Council to a large degree depended on the Universal Periodic Review. It should not duplicate the work of other human rights mechanisms, particularly the treaty bodies. Technical and financial support was requested in order for countries to meet the requirements for the Review. All countries should exert more efforts to increase the protection of human rights. The Universal Periodic Review should be held after the March 2008 session. Countries should be given enough time to prepare their reports. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) should present Member States with a road map to assist them in their national efforts to prepare for the review process. As this was a new mechanism and since developing and least developed countries faced institutional capacity constraints to prepare a multitude of national reports presented to treaty bodies, the OHCHR should assist them in the process. The additional resources allocated to the OHCHR should provide the Office with the needed flexibility to undertake this support.

OZO NWOBU (Nigeria) said on the Universal Periodic Review, Nigeria wished for a very open and transparent process, with a clear road map on the implementation and status of implementation. Nigeria also believed that there was need for good time framework in order to have a well-understood process that would start after March 2008. The process was entirely inter-Governmental, and while taking into consideration all relevant bodies and stakeholders, the focus should always be inter-Governmental, and should not duplicate the work of the treaty bodies. The activities of States or concerned States should always be in mind. For the process to succeed, there was a need for capacity building. Where difficulties arose, it was important for there to be funding to be put in place before the transition period began. It was important to delineate clearly from where the funding originated.

DORA BLAZSEK (Hungary) said agreement was close on institution-building issues. Hungary thanked delegations that had made concrete proposals on Working Groups of the former Commission. Hungary welcomed the proposal on the Working Group on contemporary forms of slavery, and supported the Austrian initiative on minority issues. The Working Group on minorities had provided an important opportunity for dialogue, and the practice should continue allowing a wider range of stakeholders to contribute. There was a clear need to continue and allow civil society organizations to have input into the process. Hungary looked forward to discussing the Working Groups on indigenous populations as well as the Social Forum.

DAITHI O. CEALLAIGH (Ireland) said that this year marked the 200th anniversary of the end of the transatlantic slave trade. Unfortunately, slavery persisted to this day and these people deserved attention. Ireland wished to see a new mechanism to address this crucial issue. The appointment of a Special Rapporteur with a pro-active role in this matter would be an appropriate way.

PEKKA METSO (Finland) said Finland welcomed the initiative to create a Forum on Minority Issues to replace the Working Group on minorities. The former Working Group had both its strengths and weaknesses, and it was important to preserve the former in the future. The main advantages in the proposed Forum were that it envisaged broad participation, sought synergies in existing mechanisms and had a flexible and light structure. The synergies that the proposal sought with the Independent Expert on Minority Issues were of particular importance. Broad participation was of utmost importance to the Forum.

ALLEHONE MULUGETA ABEBE (Ethiopia) said Ethiopia welcomed the expeditious conclusion of the Universal Periodic Review process. On the Universal Periodic Review voluntary fund for developing countries, alternative mechanisms were available while awaiting the establishment of the fund. Ethiopia was heartened by the readiness of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) to provide support, but the Council should declare ways and means of operationalising these alternatives. There was still no clear idea of the form and content of compilations and the extent of coverage by OHCHR. There were also other issues that needed clarification. Ethiopia called on the OHCHR to follow these up.

DUSKO UZUNOVSKI (Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) said that issues related to minorities and implementation of minority rights required further consideration and follow up. The proposed Forum for Minorities Issues would be an innovative way that would provide the Council with a valuable tool in tackling issues and problems related to minorities. Its work would provide the Council with opportunities for more intensive cooperation with the UN Independent Expert on Minorities. The Forum would also help to effectively implement the goals and objectives of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to Minorities.

JANIS MAZEIKS (Latvia) said with regards to promoting cooperation with the Special Procedures, extending standing invitations to all Special Procedures was a clear way to show readiness and willingness to cooperate fully with all Special Procedures. The number of countries that had extended standing invitations had grown too slowly over recent years, and a significant increase in the number of invitations over the course of next year would be a useful contribution to the celebrations to mark the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Council should work towards universalisation of all standing invitations, in an inclusive way, preserving the voluntary nature of the commitment.

ANH THU DUONG (Switzerland) said Switzerland reaffirmed its support for the Facilitator’s institution-building document, begun over a year ago. Switzerland was committed to item 1 and felt the proposals were an acceptable compromise. Switzerland hoped they would be adopted by consensus during the sixth session. On the Universal Periodic Review, obtaining results would call for rapid implementation of the process and this should begin in Spring 2008. Switzerland was volunteering for the process. Draft resolutions had been seen on minorities and on contemporary forms of slavery. Switzerland felt it was essential to have a platform for minorities, and to promote the involvement of minorities in human rights promotion and protection issues. The contemporary forms of slavery issue should be transformed into a Special Procedure.

CHRIS SIDOTI, of International Service for Human Rights, said that three months ago they had sensed a feeling of achievement. Three months later two trends were coming out. The package itself said that the highest qualified experts should be appointed but there was concern that the higher criteria would be the more it would exclude people from developing and quite likely from developed countries too. The second trend was delay and there was no excuse for this. The need for a fund on technical assistance could not be an excuse for the delay.

PATRIZIA SCANNELLA, of Amnesty International, said over the coming year, the Council had a rare opportunity to redress the lack of an overall institutional framework for the various Special Procedures’ mandates by establishing a comprehensive and coherent system, one which could facilitate different mandate holders operating together as part of the larger United Nations human rights machinery to protect and promote all human rights effectively. One key element of constructing such a system involved identifying gaps in the existing framework. The Council should adopt a two-stage approach to identify gaps and to decide when and how to fill them.

NYANGORI OHENJO, of Minority Rights Group International, on behalf of severals NGOs1 , said the Working Group on minorities had been a successful component of the UN system. The UN recognized the need to protect minorities for social stability. The Austrian initiative was welcomed on finding a platform for minorities to raise issues, holding dialogue with governments, considering thematic areas, and working towards mainstreaming rights of minorities within the UN. Neither the Independent Expert nor the Forum alone would be sufficient to address all the concerns of minorities worldwide. There should however be a strong link between them. But it was critical to hear the voices of minority groups themselves. Non-governmental organizations provided value to improve dialogue with governments. Flexible forms of participation for minorities should be put in place to increase the voices of developing countries.

RONALD BARNES, of Indian Council of South America, thanked the sponsors of the resolution to promote the Indigenous expert Body. Many indigenous peoples, nations and organizations had not been able to participate in the process that had led to the adoption of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in New York, nor had many been fully informed about it or given the chance to consent to it. The interpretation of international law regarding all indigenous peoples must include that they had the right to be fully informed and to consent. It was recalled that a great number of indigenous peoples did not accept the modified Declaration.

GENEVIEVE JOURDAN, of Association of World Citizens, said all people who had regularly participated in the Working Group on contemporary forms of slavery had had to accept the self-evident fact that whereas standards against slavery had been established, the implementation of these norms was another matter. The human being had become an object, a good to be traded. The Special Rapporteur had explicitly condemned the practice of closing one’s eyes to debt-bondage, a condition akin to slavery. It was against inertia that the fight should be made. There should be an encompassing approach, including States and civil society.

ROMUALD PIAL MEZALA, of International League for the Rights and Liberation of People, called for an indigenous experts body, as proposed by the Indigenous Peoples Caucus, to replace the Working Group on indigenous peoples. This would strengthen the Council’s role in human rights, notably in respect of follow up and implementation on decisions. It would enable the challenges on implementation of the Declaration to be understood, and facilitate communications and integration issues among indigenous peoples.

CLAIRE CHARTERS, of International Indian Treaty Council, expressed appreciation to the Council for helping in facilitating the adoption of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples should be maintained and strengthened. The Council should also include a regular agenda item addressing indigenous people’s rights in its ongoing work, and include experts on indigenous people’s rights in the Council’s advisory body. The establishment of a Working Group on indigenous issues was also strongly endorsed.

LAZARO PARY, of Indian Movement “Tupaj Amaru”, on behalf of World Peace Council,said it was important for the Council to create an appropriate and effective mechanism to replace the Working Group on indigenous peoples. An open-ended body, endowed with wide authority and capacity, open to leaders and representatives of indigenous communities as well as observers, which should have attributions, contributions and functions in innovative spheres, should be established. It should provide the Council with specialised advice in areas of its competence.


TOMAS ALARCON, of Juridical Commission for Auto-Development of First Andean Peoples (CAPAJ), said yesterday there had been an exchange among indigenous peoples’ organisations and supporting States and organisations and they had agreed on the basis of a body to replace the Working Group on indigenous peoples . Indigenous societies were highly organised, with a unique understanding of the cosmos, but had been persecuted and deprived of their natural resources. The Human Rights Council should take up the challenge of tackling the legacy of colonialism and provide for dialogue between indigenous peoples and the Human Rights Council, through a pro-active body whose recommendations could be implemented.

HIDEAKI VEMURA, of Shimin Gaikou Centre (Citizens' Diplomatic Centre For The Rights Of Indigenous Peoples), offered their congratulations on the adoption of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. It would be an important basis for taking action to protect the human rights of indigenous peoples and it would undoubtedly mean a significant development of international human rights standards. The significance of standard-setting activities as well as action-oriented activities in the human rights field was recalled. The retention and strengthening of the Working Groups was supported.

ALESANDRA SARDA, of Action Canada for Population and Development, said the Council should establish an independent expert body of experts on indigenous issues to replace the former Working Group of the Sub-Commission for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights. Violations of the human rights of indigenous peoples were unfortunately a daily occurrence in all societies of the world, and the new body should have as its prime task the following-up of laws and policies protecting the rights of indigenous peoples at the national and international levels. The realities of life for indigenous women and children were harsh. A body of this type would ensure that the work of the Council was of high quality and effective, and show that this was a new phase in the work of the United Nations to make sure that the exercise of human rights was enjoyed by all human beings.

REFEQUAT ALI KHAN, of European Union of Public Relations, said the Working Group on minorities had been a valuable instrument, the only Working Group in the UN system to deal with the promotion and protection of human rights and discrimination against minorities. Thirty per cent of the world’s population were minorities. There were many kinds of minorities – caste, social group, religion, race – and these should all be fully considered. Greater attention was needed in the case of conflict between minorities.

LES MALEZER, of Foundation for Aboriginal and Islander Research Action, said that the Special Rapporteur had been a proved and effective mechanism for addressing indigenous issues at the thematic and practical levels and the renewal of the mandate was fully supported. The creation of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues had not reduced the need for the Working Group on indigenous peoples. It was noted that the Permanent Forum had made over one hundred recommendations on human rights issues, none of which had been raised either in the Commission on Human Rights or the Human Rights Council sessions. The Human Rights Council had to play an important part in seeing that indigenous peoples rights were promoted, implemented and monitored. The establishment of an Indigenous Expert Body reporting to the Human Rights Council was supported and indigenous experts should be appointed to it.

FAMARIL MLAWNCHING, of International Working Group for Indigenous Affairs, said the adoption by the General Assembly of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was welcomed, and it set minimum standards for the survival of indigenous people. Indigenous people were the poorest and the most marginalized people in the world, and their situation was crucial and important if the Human Rights Council was serious with regards to the protection and promotion of human rights. The Council should include the indigenous issue in the Universal Periodic Review as a means of assessing the compliance of States with the Declaration. There should be an Indigenous Expert Body to replace the former Working Group on indigenous issues. The mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of indigenous populations should be extended.


JEREMIE SMITH, of Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, on behalf of Colombian Commission of Jurists; International Movement against all Forms of Discrimination and Racism; and Baha'i International Community, aid national and southern non-governmental organizations (NGOs) were best placed to monitor human rights situations on the ground. The Council needed to provide a system of procedures and practices that enabled their participation in the Universal Periodic Review process. General guidelines were needed for information preparation, mechanisms (e.g. web cast) to reduce the financial burden on non Geneva-based NGOs, structuring of Universal Periodic Review in keeping with international laws. A clear position on the fact that the Universal Periodic Review was not designed to supersede the country mandate system was needed.

JULIE GROMELLON, of International Federation of Human Rights Leagues (FIDH), said that they recognised that the implementation of the Universal Periodic Review would strengthen the UN system. Safeguards were needed to avoid politicization of the debate. The appointment of independent human rights experts was necessary in order to achieve a consistent process. Results obtained on the ground should be maximised. The outcome should focus on measures which were easy to implement.

WILTON LITTLECHILD, of International Indian Treaty Council, said because indigenous peoples were at most times the poorest and most marginalized group, a specific reference to the situation of indigenous peoples in the process of the Universal Periodic Review was very crucial and important. The overwhelming adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was a welcome and clear global call for the recognition and respect of indigenous peoples worldwide. When a Human Rights Council member voted against adoption of a human rights instrument without substantial legal reasons, it should immediately offer to go under Universal Periodic Review or resign their seat on the Council.

1Joint statement: Minority Rights Group International;International Movement against all Forms of Discrimination and Racism; International Federation for the Protection of The Rights of Ethnic, Religious, Linguistic & Other Minorities; Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples; Asian Legal Resource Centre; Society for Threatened Peoples; International Human Rights Islamic Commission; and Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions.



For use of the information media; not an official record

HRC07059E