HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL DISCUSSES REPORTS ON FREEDOM OF RELIGION AND BELIEF, AND HUMAN RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL SOLIDARITY

The Human Rights Council this morning discussed the reports of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, and the Independent Expert on human rights and international solidarity.

Asma Jahangir, Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, presenting her report, said there were many issues of concern for the mandate, including that in some countries, believers belonging to religious minorities were not allowed to worship or conduct any religious activities without State approval or prior registration. On the one hand, the freedom of pursuing one’s religion or belief should be protected and respected. On the other hand, the rights of individuals also had to be protected from being violated on the premise of religion or belief. The mandate had noted, time and again, that victims of religious intolerance belonged to all religions and beliefs. If mutual tolerance, understanding and interest at the grassroots levels were established, then it could be possible to ultimately prevent many incidents of intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief.

Rudi Muhammad Rizki, Independent Expert on human rights and international solidarity, said the three focus areas in his report were international cooperation, global response to natural disasters, diseases and agricultural pests and third generation rights. On international cooperation, it was of essential importance to the realization of the right to development and in contributing to equality in development. The benefits and burdens of this global world were not evenly distributed and the world needed a fairer distribution of the benefits of globalisation.
On the second area of focus, with an increase in the impact of natural disasters in recent years, this had created a growing recognition of international solidarity and the sustainable development and related efforts needed to prevent and reduce the effect of natural disasters. The third area of focus included the right to development, already mentioned in the context of international cooperation.

In the course of the interactive debate, delegations raised a number of issues, including that inter-religious and intra-religious dialogue was crucial for the prevention of intolerance and discrimination, and for promoting respect for religions and beliefs. There was deep concern for discriminatory practices against religious minorities and incitement to violence in the name of religion. Many further efforts were needed to eliminate intolerance based on religion or belief, and many delegations mentioned the importance of education in this regard.

In the context of human rights and international solidarity, delegations pointed out that in this world, international cooperation and international solidarity were more necessary than ever. International relations should be based on international law and the principle of solidarity and cooperation between peoples, for the good of mankind. It was also noted that it was important to consider international solidarity as a right of peoples and a responsibility of the international community.

At the beginning of the meeting, the Council also heard a statement by Cuba on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement on the institution-building process of the Council.

Speaking this morning were the representatives of India, Portugal for the European Union, Belgium, Canada, Philippines, Armenia, Australia, Egypt for the African Group, Ethiopia, Pakistan for the Organization of the Islamic Conference, Brazil, Indonesia, Spain, Azerbaijan, China, Russian Federation, Italy, Albania, Norway, Republic of Korea, Bangladesh, Netherlands, Venezuela, New Zealand, Jordan, Cuba, Thailand, Chile, Tunisia, Pakistan and Malaysia.

Also speaking were the representatives of Baha'i International Community; Association for World Education (speaking on behalf of Association of World Citizens); International Humanist and Ethical Union; Pax Romana (speaking on behalf of Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development, International Movement against all Forms of Discrimination and Racism, and Asian Legal Resource Centre); International Service for Human Rights (speaking on behalf of Friends World Committee for Consultation - QUAKERS); Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples (speaking on behalf of several NGOs1); Association of World Citizens; New Humanity; and Federacion de Asociaciones de Defensa y Promocion de los Derechos Humanos.

The next meeting of the Council will be at 3 p.m. this afternoon, when it will conclude the debate on the reports on freedom of religion or belief and human rights and international solidarity before hearing a statement by the High Commissioner for Human Rights, followed by a general debate. It will then take up issues under item 9 on the agenda, namely racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related forms of intolerance.

General Statement

JUAN ANTONIO FERNANDEZ PALACIOS (Cuba), speaking on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, said the main priority of the Council’s sixth session should be completion of the institution-building process and review and rationalization of mandates. Members of the Non-Aligned Movement had engaged in informal consultations during the week. The elaboration of technical and objective requirements for members of the Advisory Committee must not hamper the right of Member States to submit the candidate of their election, especially in the case of developing countries. It was vital to agree on a balanced programme of work for the coming year, to ensure predictability, transparency and preparedness of all delegations. Clarity of timing was required, and the right of Member States to decide on the appropriate moment to present initiatives or take up issues should be observed. The Non-Aligned Movement considered that there must be time before the Universal Periodic Review in 2008 for States to make adequate preparations. It was requested that the Council begin the process after March 2008. It was hoped the institution-building package agreed on in June would be preserved in its integrity.

Report of Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief

The Council has before it the report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, Asma Jahangir (A/HRC/6/5). The report highlights worrying situations where the freedom to adopt, change or renounce a religion or belief has been infringed, for example when State agents try to convert, reconvert or prevent the conversion of persons. Vulnerable groups include persons deprived of their liberty, refugees, children, minorities and migrant workers. There have also been cases of killings and arbitrary detention for reasons of religion or belief. States should devise proactive strategies in order to prevent such violations, and foster understanding, tolerance, dialogue and pluralism. The report outlines the scope of the mandate, which includes freedom to adopt, change or renounce a belief, freedom to manifest it, and freedom from coercion, as well as freedom to follow religious holidays, appoint clergy, and in matters of moral education. It stipulates the right to free and peaceful communication across borders with other minorities and communities. States should pay increased attention to attacks on places of worship and prosecute those who perpetrate these acts. Intersection of freedom of religion or belief with other human rights is illustrated by the relationship to freedom of expression. Freedom of religion or belief is protected as one of the essential rights by article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Respect for the right to freedom of expression, as articulated in article 19 of Covenant, constitutes a pillar of democracy and reflects a country’s standard of justice and fairness. Peaceful expression of opinions and ideas should always be tolerated. Other intersecting mandates are those on prohibition on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and the rights to life and liberty. Crosscutting issues include national legislative issues, the rights of defenders of freedom of religion or belief and non-governmental organizations.

Presentation of Report of Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief

Asma Jahangir, Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, presenting her report, said she had focused her thematic report on the substantive questions involved, rather than providing an overview of the mandate’s activities. There were many issues of concern for the mandate, including that in some countries, believers belonging to religious minorities were not allowed to worship or conduct any religious activities without State approval or prior registration. Furthermore, places of worship or religious properties had been attacked or otherwise subjected to restrictions, and also misused by non-State actors for illegitimate purposes. Some States encroached on the appointment procedure of religious leaders or required approval by the authorities for certain promotions within religious groups. Girls and women were in a particularly vulnerable situation: many of them suffered from aggravated discrimination. Further vulnerable groups included persons deprived of their liberty, refugees, children, minorities and migrant workers.

The mandate had several areas of concern, Ms. Jahangir said, but it had two main strands which should get equal attention. On the one hand, the freedom of pursuing one’s religion or belief should be protected and respected. On the other hand, the rights of individuals had also to be protected from being violated on the premise of religion or belief. The mandate had noted, time and again, that victims of religious intolerance belonged to all religions and beliefs. At the same time, the perpetrators were also not confined to one or a few identified religious or belief communities. Freedom of religion or belief was a multifaceted human right. The mandate practice showed that the effective protection and promotion of the right to freedom of religion or belief posed serious challenges to all States. Wise and balanced decision-making at all governmental levels as well as non-discriminatory legislation were crucial for addressing the delicate issues involved.

Ms. Jahangir said protection needed to be complemented by prevention efforts. States should devise pro-active strategies in order to prevent acts of intolerance and discrimination. States needed to review policies and administrative approaches in all issues involving freedom of religion or belief. Education could play an important preventive role, especially when it ensured respect for and acceptance of pluralism and diversity. Inter-religious and intra-religious exchanges should be encouraged; this could also include exchanges of views with believes who were dispassionate about their faith, as well as with atheistic and non-theistic believers. Such a dialogue would also greatly benefit from the perspectives of women and of young people. If mutual tolerance, understanding and interest at the grassroots levels were established, then it could be possible to ultimately prevent many incidents of intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief.

Report of Independent Expert on Human Rights and International Solidarity

The Council has before it the report of the Independent Expert on human rights and international solidarity, Rudi Muhammad Rizki (A/HRC/4/8), which provides an overview of the evolution of international solidarity, followed by sections on the three areas of focus he identified in his first report: international cooperation; global response to natural disasters, diseases and agricultural pests; and third-generation rights, providing some practical suggestions for action in each area. In conclusion, the Independent Expert emphasizes the need for international solidarity in the present-day globalised society, and argues for recognition of international solidarity as a right of peoples.

Presentation of Report of Independent Expert on Human Rights and International Solidarity

RUDI MUHAMMAD RIZKI, Independent Expert on human rights and international solidarity, said that the three focus areas in his report that developed the human rights of people through international solidarity were: international cooperation, global response to natural disasters, diseases and agricultural pests and third generation rights. On the focus of international cooperation, it was of essential importance to the realization of the right to development and in contributing to equality in development. The benefits and burdens of this global world were not evenly distributed and the world needed a fairer distribution of the benefits of globalisation. It was only through broad and sustained efforts to create a shared future that globalisation could be made fully inclusive and equitable

Mr. Rizki said that he saw the duty of solidarity as an imperative prerequisite of globalisation. International cooperation could ensure that globalisation was made fully inclusive and equitable and also led to achieving sustained growth, to ensure that people in all developing countries could benefit from globalisation. The spirit of international cooperation as an approach to globalisation was reflected in Millennium Development Goal 8, where the concept of solidarity was closely related to the partnership aspect. He suggested a number of practical steps including endorsement of regional initiatives for monitoring the realization of human rights, especially the right to development.

Mr. Rizki noted that the second area of focus was the global response to natural disasters, diseases and agricultural pests. With an increase in the impact of natural disasters in recent years, this had created a growing recognition of international solidarity and the sustainable development and related efforts needed to prevent and reduce the effect of natural disasters. These could include providing assistance and cooperation in developing and implementing measures for disaster relief and emergency response, and through exchange of information and technology based on mutual assistance. On diseases, promoting health and fighting pandemics, such as HIV/AIDS, malaria and the emerging avian influenza, would improve the lives of many people and resonate with Millennium Development Goal 6 and only accentuated the need for international solidarity in this area. On agricultural pests, any disruption of the agricultural sector could lead to adverse consequences and also lead to a slowdown in poverty eradication and could seriously impede bio-security and fighting hunger. There was a need for international solidarity in helping development countries develop analytical, scientific, and administrative and infrastructure capacities in agriculture.

The third area of focus would be what was referred to as “third-generation rights”. These included the right to development, already mentioned in the context of international cooperation. More broadly, these rights could be seen as rights of solidarity.

Interactive Dialogue on Reports

SWASHPAWAN SINGH (India) said that despite the wide recognition of the right to freedom of belief as a fundamental human right, implementation was far from a reality. True respect for all religions would come only with respect for tolerance and pluralism. States should ensure their constitutional systems and laws provided adequate guarantees for freedom of thought, religion and belief. They should also devise strategies to counter violations of these rights. The emphasis on education and inter- or intra-religious dialogue was rightly emphasized in the report. There was a need for a detailed analysis of the intersection between rights to freedom of belief with other human rights in order to address contemporary issues such as incitement to religious hatred.

FRANCISCO XAVIER ESTEVES (Portugal), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the European Union had always supported the work of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, and considered it to be a very important instrument in ensuring that one of the fundamental human rights was upheld in the core human rights instruments. Combating all forms of discrimination based on religion or belief was a particularly important task, and the European Union would continue to devote its attention to this issue.

Ms. Jahangir had identified in her report a number of groups that were particularly vulnerable with regard to their freedom of religion or belief, and called on States to ensure that their constitutional and legislative systems provided adequate and effective guarantee of freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief to all without distinction. What measures did the Special Rapporteur think that States should promote in order to ensure that these rights were fully protected, as well as what could be done by the Council to protect persons cooperating with the mandate. The European Union was particularly concerned about the rights of minorities who faced discrimination and persecution in a number of countries, and welcomed the Special Rapporteur’s views on how States could honour their obligations as to how to ensure that the persons on their territories and under their jurisdiction could practice the religion or belief of their choice free of coercion and fear.

NATHALIE RONDEUX (Belgium) said the report by Ms. Jahangir gave a global view on her mandate. Belgium asked how States could best encourage the dialogue between religions and dialogue between believers and non-believers as suggested by the Special Rapporteur.

JOHN VON KAUFMANN (Canada) said the Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of religion or belief had visited a number of countries and been able to focus on substantive issues as part of her mandate and asked whether she could speak about some of the challenges and how they could be alleviated. Canada was deeply concerned by discriminatory practices against religious minorities and incitement to violence in the name of religion. Many further efforts were needed to eliminate intolerance based on religion or belief. How could the international community help the Special Rapporteur in fulfilling her mandate?

JESUS ENRIQUE GARCIA (Philippines) said education served as an essential tool for promoting peace and understanding in society, and more work needed to be done to enhance cooperation in this regard. Inter-religious and intra-religious dialogue was vital for cooperation among religions. This was an official policy in the development plan of the Philippines, and a core aspect of the peace initiatives. Inter-faith dialogue was promoted in the Asia-Pacific region. The Philippines shared the Special Rapporteur’s concern about vulnerable groups, in particular migrant workers, and urged that their right to express their freedom of religion or belief be respected in all States.

ARTAK APITONIAN (Armenia) said that the issue of freedom of religion was of much importance to Armenia. In the era of globalisation, everyone should really try to reach out to others. Living at the crossroads of civilization for millennia, Armenia was used to the respect of other cultures and religions. Armenia further welcomed the observations and remarks of the Special Rapporteur and fully endorsed her view that attacks against places of worship were a direct violation of the right of individuals to freedom of religion and belief. Armenia welcomed the highlighting in the report of the interaction between freedom of religion and freedom of expression.

GUY O’BRIEN (Australia) said the right to freedom of religion or belief was an essential right. Australia was committed to fostering mutual respect and tolerance across the region and was particularly involved in the regional inter-faith dialogue process that had been taking place. Australia looked forward to further enhancements in the process at the next dialogue in Cambodia in 2008. Youth inter-faith forums had also been set up to promote personal links and understanding. Australia invited the Special Rapporteur to comment on the impact of similar initiatives elsewhere.

IHAB GAMALELDIN (Egypt), speaking on behalf of the African Group, said the report on human rights and international solidarity managed to accurately address the inter-relation among the three generations of human rights. It highlighted the fact that international cooperation was a pre-requisite to achieve not only partial but also international interests. This vindicated the long-standing call by developing countries to address the issue of international development with a solidarity-based approach.

In an absence of a true feeling of the unity of origin and destination of mankind, most of the human rights instruments would be rendered meaningless. The role of the international community could not be confined to criticism, accusations or finger pointing. The Independent Expert should explain the ways and means he viewed necessary to further deepen the concept of international solidarity in the United Nations human rights instruments.

ALLEHONE MULUGETA ABEBE (Ethiopia) said Ethiopia particularly welcomed the Independent Expert on human rights and international solidarity’s remarks to financially support developing countries to help them meet the Millennium Development Goals. Ethiopia asked whether the Rapporteur saw a need for a joint study by mandate holders to look at the Millennium Development Goals for development and for human rights and to see how developing countries could benefit from resources which were made available.

MARGHOOB SALEEM BUTT (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), said the report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief called for stronger denunciation of violence by Muslim leaders in order to “de-link” Islam from terrorism. There had been many such denunciations and a matching response had not been forthcoming. The ever-growing incidents of religious intolerance and xenophobia in the west were taking the world far from its aim of religious and cultural harmony. The OIC condemned forced religious conversions by majority religious groups, attacks of places of worship, restriction on the display of religious symbols and erosion of rights of parents to ensure moral education for their children. The OIC deplored States that linked freedom of belief with freedom of expression and opinion in order to shrug off responsibility. Unrestricted and disrespectful enjoyment of freedom of expression was contrary to the spirit of peaceful dialogue. Equating religions with extremist terrorism was dangerous and it was essential to de-link terrorist acts from the right to peacefully follow one’s faith. Further efforts were needed to eliminate intolerance and discrimination, including through education and interfaith dialogue.

SERGIO ABREU E LIMA FLORENCIO (Brazil) said the work of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief had been carried out with great competence. In Brazil, the multicultural, multiethnic society embraced many religions and creeds within a syncretic environment that was a distinctive feature of that society. Education could help to enhance respect for pluralism and diversity, as well as avoiding acts of intolerance and discrimination. A constructive approach was contained in the Special Rapporteur’s description of the situation with regards to women and children and other groups who were denied the freedom of religion or belief.

On the work of the Independent Expert on human rights and international solidarity, the issue of international solidarity, including the areas of focus in the report, were of great importance. International solidarity and cooperation was the basis of Brazil’s external policy. The Government had established a social and economic council in order to enhance dialogue in this regard. A number of local phenomena menaced the destiny of mankind, and they were also a threat to human rights. In this world, international cooperation and international solidarity were more necessary than ever.

JOSE ANTONIO TAVARES (Indonesia) said freedom of religion or belief had a rather particular and interlinking impact on the social, cultural and political structure of a country, mainly because it had the capacity to affect the way in which the inhabitants of a country interacted in those three very different areas. With regards to religious awareness or education, Indonesia for its part remained committed to inter-faith dialogue, which was believed to constitute one of the most critical ways in which knowledge and understanding could be shared. With regard to the human rights and international cooperation report, Indonesia appreciated the concrete examples of what countries could do to meet some of the global economic challenges and asked if these examples were sufficient and would have enough impact to readjust the imbalance noted in the report and in order to promote a more inclusive society.

MARIA DE LOS REYES FERNANDEZ BULNES (Spain) said the report by the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief had identified a series of educational and school-based measures or initiatives that governments were advised to employ to promote religious harmony and tolerance. These measures would go a long way to encouraging and facilitating exchange between pupils and teachers and motivating academic research in terms of freedom of religion and belief. Spain asked if the Special Rapporteur could indicate the progress made in this issue over the last six years, or comment on similar good-practice examples.

ELCHIN AMIRBAYOV (Azerbaijan) said the international community continued to witness, maybe with even more intensity, in the stances of religious and cultural prejudice, misunderstanding, intolerance and discrimination on the basis of religion or belief. The Special Rapporteur had touched upon a broad range of manifestations of religious intolerance. It was Azerbaijan’s conviction that national authorities should respect the religious communities’ right to freedom of religion or belief, and should abide by national legislation by rejecting all forms of intolerance which spread radicalism and extremism. Only through balance and mutual respect would it be possible to strengthen genuine religious harmony in society.

Inter-religious and intra-religious dialogue was crucial for the prevention of intolerance and discrimination, and for promoting respect for religions and beliefs. The minimum prerequisite for harmonious coexistence was that different civilisations and traditions recognised and mutually respected each other’s cultural differences. There was a need for an approach that understood the importance of preserving and respecting differences as enriching elements, instead of abandoning them to create fertile ground for enmity and hatred.

LA YIFAN (China) said that the promotion of dialogue between different civilizations and different religions was very important and China supported the work done in this sector by the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief. China also noted that the work of the Independent Expert on human rights and international solidarity was in the spirit of this Council. It was important to achieve the Millennium Development Goals and China believed it was important to promote global solidarity to achieve the Goals in time. At halfway point to the deadline for the Millennium Development Goals, progress was far from satisfactory. Could the Independent Expert comment on this fact and elaborate on what he believed could be done in order to promote the attainment of the Millennium Development Goals in time.

GALINA KHVAN (Russian Federation) said the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief’s report was trying to be as balanced and objective as possible. Her framework had helped promote productive cooperation between the Special Rapporteur and States and civil society. The report mentioned violations of rights of minorities committed be non-state actors. The issue of the responsibility of non-state actors required further analysis. On the balance between religious freedom and abuses of these freedoms, there was a need to make a distinction. It was important to de-link religions and terrorism. Extremist groups exploited beliefs and religions for their own purposes. Some even created pseudo religious doctrines that had nothing to do with real religions. The abuse of freedom of religion and belief must be strictly suppressed.

PASQUALE D'AVINO (Italy) said the issue of dialogue among religions, cultures and civilisations was indeed one of the most important and challenging questions to be addressed by the Human Rights Council. It involved a wide category of civil and political rights, deeply interlinked among themselves, ranging from freedom of religion and belief to freedom of expression and of association, and from social and cultural rights to the rights of minorities. Such important issues should be dealt with in an atmosphere of openness, mutual respect, and privileging the attitude in which the views of all were listened to.

SEJDI QERIMAJ (Albania) agreed with the conclusions made by the Special Rapporteur on freedom or belief in her report, saying that the violation of this human right continued to be at the origin of wars. On the elimination of intolerance and discrimination based on religion, Albania noted with satisfaction the many efforts carried out to eradicate intolerance by various parties. The discussion of these issues in this Council should aim at bringing religions and cultures closer together. Albanian society had never suffered from discrimination inside the society as the legislative system incorporated the necessary guarantees to assure the defence of all religious communities.

ANNE MERCHANT (Norway) said the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief had provided a very informative overview. Norway concurred with the conclusion that States must ensure their constitutional and legislative systems safeguarded rights to freedom of religion and belief. Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights protected theistic and non-theistic beliefs as well as the right to practice no belief or religion. Education and inter- and intra-religious dialogue were important tools for tolerance and pluralism. Respect for the right to freedom of expression as articulated in the Covenant was a pillar of democracy. Freedom of expression and peaceful assembly were fundamental rights and interdependent with the right to freedom of religion and belief. How freedom of expression should be respected while protecting freedom of belief was a basic challenge.

JANG JAE-BOK (Republic of Korea) said inter-religious and intra-religious dialogue was vital for the prevention of conflicts. In the Republic of Korea, inter-religious associations had promoted inter-religious reconciliation and peace. There should be inter-religious events worldwide. In the meantime, international efforts such as the “Alliance of Civilisations” were expected to make meaningful contributions to promote the dialogue and cooperation among religions.

MUSTAFIZUR RAHMAN (Bangladesh) agreed with the observation in the report by the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief that minorities, women and children were often the first victims of discrimination. Bangladesh shared that it was largely the role of the State to protect its citizens from violations. Further, Bangladesh condemned acts such as the cartoon cases that, in their opinion were generating hatred. Freedom could not be infinite and must be exercised with respect. Inter-religious dialogue was a necessary factor. On the report on international solidarity, international cooperation towards solidarity was needed to protect human rights. Countries had primary responsibility for economic development, but transparency in the international monetary and funding system was also necessary. Help for development was particularly needed by the developing countries to achieve the Millennium Development Goals.

JORIS J.H. GEEVEN (Netherlands) said the Netherlands shared concern over State interference in the appointment of religious leaders. The attention given to discrimination against women on the grounds of religious, ethnic or sexual identity, and to female genital mutilation, was welcome. Which countries had recently improved legislation to protect individual freedom to adopt, change or renounce religion or belief, and what measures could be taken to create a free environment where tolerance of all faiths was self-evident. The Netherlands agreed with the view that free expression should only be curbed under article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (i.e. in the prohibition of hate propaganda). For this issue an independent court was the only institution.

GABRIEL SALAZAR (Venezuela) said solidarity was, inter alia, one of the highest values of the legal order of the State, and international relations should be based on international law and the principle of solidarity and cooperation between peoples, for the good of mankind. Venezuela had drawn up a model of solidarity, aimed at meeting the needs of the most vulnerable of the continent. The Independent Expert should take into account resolution 26/25 of the United Nations on relations of friendship and cooperation among States in accordance with the United Nations Charter, as well as others. Venezuela acknowledged the conceptual progress made in the report with regards to generational rights, in particular with regards to the Independent Expert’s avoidance of hierarchies of rights.

WENDY HINTON (New Zealand), commenting on the report by the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, said that New Zealand attached a great deal of importance to the protection of religious rights and endorsed the concerns highlighted in the report. New Zealand had hosted a symposium on inter- and intra-religious dialogue earlier this year and the Government fully supported efforts in this area.

MUSA BURAYZAT (Jordan) said Jordan wished to reiterate the question regarding ways and means of promoting the right to development that was raised by China. Jordan also asked whether paragraph 38 of the report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion and belief implied that defamation of religious symbols was an act of freedom of expression. Was a hostile and abusive act, in speech, art or other form, to be considered a form of freedom of expression? How had this association of two freedoms become so prevalent in the discussion? Was it possible to look at the inter-relationship again?

RAFAEL GARCIA COLLADA (Cuba) said with regards to the report on human rights and international solidarity, it was very important to consider international solidarity as a right of peoples, and a responsibility of the international community, in particular of the States that had benefited the most from historical development. The discrepancy between the rich and poor countries of the North and South showed that there were human rights violations everywhere. Cooperation was becoming vital not only for development, but also to assist the human species.

There was a need to carry out work in the three spheres of action identified in the report. All peoples should receive international solidarity and assistance from the international community when affected by a natural disaster, among other things. There was a need to consolidate political will to overcome international injustices that caused scourges such as sub-development. International solidarity should not be understood as an act of charity, but as an act to contribute to the realisation of all human rights.

SIHASAK PHUANGKET KEOW (Thailand) said that Thailand shared the conclusions expressed in the report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief which emphasized the efforts against the use of religion as a reason for the use of violence and the importance of the promotion of education against intolerance and strengthening inter-religious dialogue. It was important to address the root causes. The advancement of economic and social status would also help to fight the religious problems of concern. On human rights and international solidarity, Thailand welcomed the recommendations made by the Independent Expert and emphasized the concerns on global health security, especially HIV/AIDS.

JUAN MARTABIT (Chile) said the report by the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief was a serious one. It was very useful to promote better understanding between religions, and Chile had supported all international initiatives to do so. The basis of better religious understanding was based on individual and collective rights to religious freedom. There could be no better personal act than that of religious faith, something that was deeply rooted in human nature. Expressions of faith through ritual and religion could not obey any order other than respect for public order, morals and good customs.

ALI CHERIF (Tunisia) said the subject of human rights and international solidarity was of particular importance, as the latter was not an option, it was a requirement for the survival of the international community as a whole. In a shrinking world, all faced many trans-boundary challenges in an inter-connected world, and without solidarity, these challenges would not be met. Solidarity should be a fundamental value, guiding cooperation at the national and international levels. The definition proposed by the Independent Expert was accepted. The value of international solidarity had been included in many international instruments, and in the Millennium Development Goals. The Independent Expert should clarify the emergence of the new right to international solidarity.

MARGHOOB SALEEM BUTT (Pakistan) said that international solidarity was not a recommendation but an obligation. The issue of the development of the poor was neither unknown nor new, and the world should not blind itself to the stark realities faced today. Negotiations at the World Trade Organization faced hard challenges in the field of agriculture, and the digital divide was an additional barrier. How could the Millennium Development Goals be achieved in this context? International solidarity was a good concept to help the betterment of the world, however, such an enabling environment would need further resources. Further collaboration at the international level was needed.

MOHAMED ZIN AMRAN (Malaysia) shared concern over religious intolerance since the 11 September attacks. Given the multi-racial and multi-faith character of Malaysian society, the country had always promoted tolerance in its constitution. Each religious group was free to manage its own affairs, subject only to limitations prescribed by law, public safety or to preserve rights and freedoms of others. States should promote open dialogue and education in order to bring people into harmonious coexistence.

DIANE ALA'I, of Baha'i International Community, said there were particular concerns over the situation of the Baha’is in Iran and Egypt. There was concern about systematic and organised persecution of members of that faith in Iran, where the Government had strengthened the implementation of a memorandum which outlined how to deal with the members of the faith, depriving them of most of the rights of ordinary Iranian citizens, whether civil, economic, social or cultural. Baha’is were being arbitrarily arrested, their properties confiscated, they were denied employment and were not allowed to carry on business activities. The Special Rapporteur should explain what was her view on recent developments in this regard.

DAVID G. LITTMAN, of Association for World Education, speaking on behalf of Association of World Citizens, said with regard to vulnerable groups, particularly women, the Special Rapporteur’s report referred to some harmful practices such as genital mutilation practiced in the name of religion. Reports showed that over 300 million victims were alive today and 3 million were mutilated each day in 32 countries, of which 29 were Member States of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. The Special Rapporteur also said in her report that terrorists acts which were carried out by non-State actors in the name of religion should be delinked from religion. What did the Special Rapporteur feel should be done about the shameful constant propagation of a Judephobic/anti-Semitic culture of hate throughout the Arab world.

ROY W. BROWN, of International Humanist and Ethical Union, in a joint statement, said that, rightly understood, there was no conflict between freedom of expression and freedom of religion and belief. All should be free to express beliefs, practice their religion and follow their conscience subject only to the constraint that they did not impede others to do the same. But a major concern was that the term “defamation of religion” was not well defined, and this meant some were stifling criticism of human rights abuses carried out in the name of religion.

BUDJI TJAHONO, of Pax Romana, speaking on behalf of Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development, International Movement against all Forms of Discrimination and Racism, and Asian Legal Resource Centre, said the Council should take note of the trend of attacks on religious leaders and places of worship in Sri Lanka, due to their involvement in protecting and assisting victims of ongoing hostilities between the Government and the LTTE. This violence was part of a wider humanitarian and human rights crisis in Sri Lanka, and showed the increasing disregard of the main armed actors towards international humanitarian law. The Special Rapporteur should explain what actions she recommended to the Sri Lankan Government, other armed actors, the Human Rights Council and the international community to ensure the safety of religious leaders and places of religious worship.


RACHEL BRETT, of International Service for Human Rights, speaking on behalf of Friends World Committee for Consultation (QUAKERS), stressed that all forms of discrimination based on religion or belief were equally prohibited by several international treaties. These international standards recognized the rights of individuals to freedom of religion or belief that could be practised alone or in community with others. Furthermore, focussing on only some religions failed to take account of the discrimination and religious intolerance that occurred within faiths.

GIANFRANCO FATTORINI, of Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples, speaking on behalf of several NGOs1, commented on the freedom of religious groups to choose their own religious leaders. China had begun measures to strip all religious rights and authority from the Tibetan Buddhist faith in the future confirmation of reincarnations. China had intensified its defamation campaign against the Dalai Lama. Ms. Jahangir was urged to put pressure on China over these matters.

GENEVIEVE JOURDAN, of Association of World Citizens, said economic development should not be carried out to the detriment of social development. International solidarity, which should be the backbone of the United Nations, was a question of coherence. There were several specific factors, including that there was a need for solidarity in action, with visible implementation now. There was a particular need for solidarity with regards to indigenous peoples. All countries should realise that without solidarity, people would no longer be able to trust organizations such as the United Nations.

ESTHER SALAMANCE, of New Humanity, speaking on the subject of international solidarity, noted that in a globalised world there was more growing interaction between individuals and groups. Also, the report recalled that the principles of fraternity and subsidiarity were universal precepts applying to all cultures and created an obligation to respect and protect human rights. The Independent Expert on human rights and international solidarity should take up these notions in his next report.

DAVID FERNANDEZ, of Federacion de Asociaciones de Defensa y Promocion de los Derechos Humanos, said the right to peace should be seen as part of international solidarity, and a necessary right in order to develop a culture of peace. The human right to peace should be developed as a component of international solidarity, and intercultural dialogue, peace, and disarmament promoted as part of the Council’s work in this area. Consultations of experts should be promoted and a task force set up within the secretariat of the Council.


1Joint statement on behalf of : Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples, Society for Threatened Peoples, Asian Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Network, Pax Romana, International Educational Development, France Libertés – Fondation Danielle Mitterrand, Interfaith International, and International Movement against all Forms of Discrimination and Racism,