HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL HOLDS INTERACTIVE DIALOGUE ON REPORTS ON RIGHT TO ADEQUATE HOUSING AND ON MINORITY ISSUES
The Human Rights Council this afternoon held an interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living and the Independent Expert on minority issues.
At the beginning of the meeting, the Council concluded its interactive dialogue with the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights defenders, the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences, and the Independent Expert on the effect of economic reform policies and foreign debt on the enjoyment of human rights, particularly economic, social and cultural rights.
Miloon Kothari, Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living and on the right to non-discrimination in this context, introducing his report, said that the creation of his mandate had permitted better exposure of these rights. It had also made the indivisibility between all human rights even more obvious. He was happy to report that adequate housing was now increasingly recognized by courts as a distinct and fully justifiable right. He hoped that the work of the past seven years had convinced all members of the Council that without the recognition of this right, many other human rights would remain unfulfilled. The realization of the right to adequate housing encountered numerous problems. It was essential to recognize the right to adequate housing through legislation policy and through budgetary commitment. States should devise strategies to ensure the implementation of the right to adequate housing. He spoke on his missions to Spain, South Africa and Canada.
Gay McDougall, United Nations Independent Expert on minority issues, said that she had chosen this year to focus on the issue of minorities and the discriminatory denial or deprivation of citizenship. The situation of minorities was often closely linked with citizenship and the conceptualization of national identity. Persons belonging to minority groups often struggled to access their human rights even under conditions of full and unquestioned citizenship, but denying or stripping them of citizenship could effectively compound their vulnerability, even raising the spectre of mass expulsion and statelessness. The experiences of minorities in all regions of the world demonstrated those realities. On the basis of those concerns she had convened an expert consultation on 6 and 7 December 2007 to consider the issue of the discriminatory denial and deprivation of citizenship as a tool for the exclusion of minorities, during which affected communities, regional experts, United Nations agencies and civil society had shared knowledge and experiences. She spoke on her visit to France.
Spain, South Africa, Canada and France spoke as concerned countries.
Speaking in the interactive dialogue on the right to adequate housing and on minority issues were Palestine on behalf of the Arab Group, Slovenia on behalf of the European Union and Germany.
Zimbabwe, Syria and Iran exercised their right of reply.
In concluding remarks, Hina Jilani, Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights defenders, said with regard to interpretation of the definition of human rights defenders, she believed there was little scope for arbitrary interpretation of the issue at hand. The definition gave a good indication to those who came under the scope of the mandate. The indicators in the report were clear and coherent and were not intended to replace analysis but rather complement them. The Special Rapporteur agreed that special attention could be paid to those human rights defenders whose rights were more vulnerable or where legal frameworks of the right they aimed to promote were weak. The status of human rights defenders could be abused; however efforts had been made to obviate that occurrence so as to ensure a diligent approach to the criteria laid down in the declaration.
Yakin Erturk, Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences, said in concluding remarks that on the indicators, all details were included in annex 5. Also, two General Assembly resolutions had acknowledged her work and were building on it. On the testimonies, they could not help the database work alone. She noted that her report had merely been a proposal to start a debate and she had the feeling that she had reached the goal in light of today’s dialogue.
In concluding remarks, Bernards Andrew Nyamwaya Mudho, Independent Expert on the effects of economic reform policies and foreign debt on the enjoyment of human rights, particularly economic, social and cultural rights, said in response to questions on contributions that the optimum level of resources was debatable but that the 0.7 per cent of GDP target, set by all countries, would be a significant step to addressing these economic development issues. He did not wish to denounce international financial institutions but encouraged them to consider human rights assessments in their policy work and agendas.
The three Special Procedures presented their reports in the midday meeting on Wednesday, 12 March. For further details, please see press release HRC/08/22.
The following countries presented statements in the interactive dialogue on human rights defenders, violence against women, and the effects of economic reform policies and foreign debt on the full enjoyment of human rights: Nigeria, Mauritania, Sweden, Israel, Thailand, Colombia, Zambia, Turkey, the United States, Jordan and the Republic of Korea.
The following non-governmental organizations also presented statements: African Commission of Health and Human Rights Promoters, Federation of Cuban Women, Human Rights First, International Federation of Human Rights Leagues (FIDH), in a joint statement with World Organization against Torture, United Nations Watch, Asia Pacific Forum on Women, Law and Development, speaking on behalf of several NGOs1, World Organization against Torture, in a joint stamtement with International Federation of Human Rights Leagues (FIDH), Europe-Third World Centre, speaking on behalf of several NGOs2, International Service for Human Rights, and International NGO Forum on Indonesian Development.
When the Council resumes its work at 9 a.m. on Thursday, 13 March, it will conclude its interactive dialogue on the reports on the right to adequate housing and on minority issues, before starting interactive dialogues with the Special Procedures on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and Myanmar. It would also discuss follow-up to the fifth Special Session of the Council on Myanmar.
Interactive Dialogue on Reports on Human Rights Defenders, Violence against Women and Effects of Economic Reform Policies and Foreign Debt on Human Rights
MARTIN IHOEGHIAN UHOMOIBHI (Nigeria) said the report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women showed how cultural practices and attitudinal dispositions in various parts of the world continued to hinder, in spite of the commitments of most governments, the attempts to eliminate violence perpetrated against women. It was inconceivable that women today continued to be subject to violence and untold indignations such as rape, domestic violence, female genital mutilation and femicide. Women were denied access to education, employment, credit facilities and were discriminated against with regard to top public offices, all on account of their gender. The Nigerian Government had drawn up a National Gender Policy with the overall aim of eliminating discrimination on account of gender and harnessing the full potential of all persons and social groups regardless of sex or circumstance such as widowhood. It was evident that a lot still had to be done in a collective quest to eliminate violence against women. Nigeria welcomed the recommendations laid out in the report of the Special Rapporteur and believed that urgent action by the international community along these lines would place it on the path towards the elimination of violence against women.
MOUNINA MINT ABDELLAH (Mauritania) said that, on violence against women, Mauritania shared the view of the Special Rapporteur that it was necessary to establish a working group for a technical manual. Female genital mutilation was a challenge that needed to be faced. Mauritania had established a ministry and a national programme for the raising of awareness for women, as well as micro-credit programmes. All this was helping to fight violence against women. The recent adopted law for election had also set a quota for women representation.
HANS DAHLGREN (Sweden) welcomed Ms. Jilani’s report and its focus on indicators. As stressed by Slovenia, reliable data was of paramount importance to effectively combat violence against women. Continued work by the Special Rapporteur on violence against women and other United Nations entities in this area would hopefully bring this issue to the fore. However, more work was needed on prevention. How could the Council play its part in better addressing the aspects of prevention of violence against women? In one final question to Ms. Erturk, with regards to the situation of sexual violence in the Democratic Republic of Congo, what were the most important measures to be taken by the Congolese Government and the international community to enhance the independence and capacity of the justice system to deal effectively with impunity?
MEIRAN EILAN SHAHAR (Israel) noted the Special Rapporteur on violence against women’s concern regarding the gap between existing national action plans to combat violence against women and the implementation of such plans. Most cases of trafficking in Israel involved prostitution. During the past few years, Israel had developed and implemented a number of legislative and social responses to deal with this disturbing phenomenon. Due to these efforts, police records indicated an overall decrease in the number of annual incidents registered, from a high of 3,000 in the year 2003. Israel had also enacted a law criminalizing trafficking in persons for the purpose of prostitution. Israel also took preventive measures in the fight against trafficking and devoted substantial resources for the care and rehabilitation of trafficking victims. Additionally, special visas were granted to trafficking victims to allow them to remain in Israel during the rehabilitation period.
CHONUIPAT CHANGTRAKUL (Thailand) said that Thailand noted with interest the proposal of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights defenders in developing comprehensive methodological tools, in particular to asses the situation of human rights defenders on the ground. While common standards were appreciated, the specific circumstances and context of the concerned countries had to be taken into account. The Thai Government attached great importance to the work of human rights defenders. There were cases in relation to Thailand in Hina Jilani’s report. The Government did not take these alleged cases lightly, and actions had been taken to investigate and verify these facts. It was unfortunate that the report had failed to mention that the Government had made progress with regard to the investigation of certain alleged cases.
TOMAS ERNESTO CONCHA (Colombia) said that in the ten years since the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, Colombia had continued to fully support the continuation of this mandate. Significant advancements had been made to protect human rights defenders in Colombia and the Government appreciated and recognized the important role that civil society organizations played in terms of democratic governance. Colombia was therefore investing in the strengthening of protection programmes and kept ongoing channels of communication open between the Government and non-governmental organizations. A programme to protect victims and witnesses of human rights abuses had also been established. Moreover, special prosecutors had been established to review cases against Government or administrative officials. Over 200 cases had already been viewed and 22 cases were referred to the military justice system. The most important objective was to establish equal respect for all civilians.
DOMINIC SICHINGA (Zambia) said Zambia recognized that violence against women continued to be an area of concern that required immediate attention. To demonstrate its commitment to fighting violence against women, the Government of Zambia was actively working on programmes to address the problem. Legislation was continuously being reviewed to incorporate particular provisions of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Violence Against Women that were not already part of Zambian legislation. Furthermore, the penal code of the State had been amended to stiffen penalties against persons convicted of indecent assault, sexual harassment and defilement. Other programmes being embarked on by the Government included the establishment of a Victim Support Unit, a special unit within the Zambian Police Service. Another measure was the initiative by the Government in collaboration with UNICEF and civil society to establish One-Stop Centres which provided an integrated service to victims of gender-based violence. It was also noted that the Government of Zambia recently signed an agreement with the United States to facilitate the training of local court justices in dealing with gender-based violence cases.
TUGBA SARAYONLU ETENSEL (Turkey) said that the Special Rapporteur on violence against women’s report had provided important guidelines and proposals on indicators to measure violence against women and State responses towards eliminating it. An annual programme adopted by Turkey in 2008 stressed the need to intensify qualitative and quantitative research. It was imperative for decisions-makers to have an accurate understanding of the magnitude, severity and prevalence of such cases. Challenges in collecting data existed. The suggested indicators were welcomed. Considerable work was needed to shift the focus from conceptualization to implementation. Would it be feasible to involve the national statistical institutions in the work of the expert group as relevant partners?
WARREN TICHENOR (United States) said that men and women worldwide, at great personal risk and against tremendous odds, continued to lay claim to basic freedoms of association, expression, religion and assembly. Societies based on pluralism thrived. Where independent voices were silenced, human rights were denied and people suffered. Some governments continued to deny their people the exercise of their human rights and fundamental freedoms. Indeed, some Governments had regressed in their pursuit of the ideal of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
In a question to the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights defenders, the United States asked whether the Special Representative had received any information regarding the situation in Syria, which it believed had reached a critical stage as the Syrian Government continued to arbitrarily arrest and detain human rights activists to prevent them from criticizing the regime. It also quickly highlighted the cases of Burma, Zimbabwe, Iran, and Cuba, where human rights advocates were prevented from expressing their opinions in a free and open manner. In conclusion, the United States echoed the Special Representative’s call to include the situation of human rights defenders in the Universal Periodic Review process, including inviting them to speak for themselves to the Council.
NAYEF AL-FARAJ (Jordan) said Jordan had undertaken a number of initiatives to eliminate violence against women and had adopted a draft law on the prevention of domestic violence, which protected women and the family as a whole. This was a preventive measure since domestic violence was not a phenomenon in Jordan. A National Council had been established which, among other things, elaborated a national strategic plan to deal with legislative policies of the State in the spirit of the promotion and protection of the family. A draft law on the protection of the family had also recently been enacted. The National Council also addressed issues pertaining to family violence through the creation of a project aimed at combating violence against women. The project had three main objectives, among which was the coordination between the various institutions dealing with this matter.
CHANG DONG-HEE (Republic of Korea) commended the work of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women on developing indicators. Measuring violence against women contributed to guiding national policies for the prevention and elimination of violence against women. The United Nations initiative to formulate international standards for the measurement of violence against women was strongly supported. Great emphasis was placed on addressing violence against women in armed conflicts. Measuring violence against women was a complex and difficult task, but it was firmly believed that the international community would overcome those challenges. What were the follow-up plans for the application of indicators on violence against women?
DJELY SAMOURA, of the African Commission on Health Promoters and Human Rights, said that the report on the effect of economic reform policies and foreign debt on the full enjoyment of human rights was very useful in addressing economic development issues, particularly in Africa. The African continent had been pushed along a destructive economic path and continued to be viewed negatively for its slow economic growth, in spite of its hard working people. While the continent held some 30 per cent of the world’s primary materials, it remained the poorest in the world. The African Commission therefore pleaded with African countries and political leaders to fight for an economic growth model that was more favourable to Africa’s natural riches.
CAROLINA AMADOR PEREZ, of the Federation of Cuban Women, said the Federation was making the statement in defense of five women who were related to political prisoners held in the United States. Ever since 12 September 1998 the rights of these women and their families had been continuously violated. The Federation of Cuban Women denounced the psychological torture and human rights violations being committed against these families.
ANDREW HUDSON, of Human Rights First, congratulated Indonesia for inviting the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights defenders. The report would assist the Government to better protect human rights defenders. Despite the improving legal and institutional framework found by the Special Rapporteur, there was still an absence of concrete measures. Despite significant political change, the situation of human rights defenders remained precarious. Defenders were subjected to threats and intimidation.
JULIE GROMELLON, of International Federation of Human Rights Leagues (FIDH), in a joint statement with World Organization against Torture, thanked the Special Rapporteur on violence against women for her report and mission to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Rape was used as a weapon of war and was used to terrorize and intimidate women in the Congo, particularly by members of the security forces. The limited amount of convictions was not just linked to the lack of financial resources in the justice system but also the lack of independence and transparency of the Congolese justice system. A Supreme Council of the judiciary should be established in order to assure the independence of judges. What other concrete proposals could be made to more effectively prosecute crimes of sexual violence? Finally, the Federation also deplored the fact that the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo had refused to respond to any of Ms. Erturk’s communications in 2007.
ALFRED MOSES, of United Nations Watch, recalled that in the report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, the Special Rapporteur had appealed to Iran after its arrest of 31 women in March 2007, whose crime was peacefully demonstrating against the prosecution of fellow women activists. It was noted that Iran failed to give a response. The Special Rapporteur had also appealed to Iran following the conviction by the Tehran Revolutionary Court of Mrs. Delaram Ali, for crimes of “propaganda against the system” and “disturbing public order”. Iran also failed to response to this appeal. In light of Iran’s systematic failure to respond to the urgent appeals of the Special Rapporteur, she was asked what further action she would take to protect women activists from beatings by their government. The Special Rapporteur was also asked if these crimes were addressed when the Foreign Minister of Iran met with the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
GI-YOUN KIM, of Asia Pacific Forum on Women, Law and Development, speaking on behalf of several NGOs1, said that they welcomed the assessment of the situation of human rights defenders and recommendations provided by the Special Representative. The report had clearly pointed out the biggest flaw in the protection of human rights defenders in Asia. It lay in the deficiency of concrete measures taken by Governments. The situation of human rights in Bangladesh, Burma, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Philippines, Sri Lanka and Thailand was worrying. It was disturbing that the police or the military often failed to protect defenders and were instead perpetrating violence against them. The danger to defenders often extended to their families and friends. How did the Special Representative believe that the indicators on human rights defenders could best be included in the Universal Periodic Review process?
DELPHINE RECULEAU, of World Organization against Torture, in a joint stamtement with International Federation of Human Rights Leagues (FIDH), commended the follow up efforts of Ms. Jilani to observe the trends by certain Governments regarding the situation of human rights defenders. In a question to the Special Representative, how would she explain the shocking drop in the number of replies by Governments to her requests for visits and further information? Also, country visits had been an opportunity to conduct direct follow up to these reports. In this regard, had countries been willing to participate in her follow up efforts and in particular, how had the Indonesian Government responded to her follow up on its intimidation campaign of human rights defenders in that country?
MUSTAFA SENE, of Europe-Third World Centre, speaking on behalf of several NGOs2, said the report of the Independent Expert on economic reform contained worrying points in that there was never a question of legitimacy of the repayment obligations, among other things. Starting with the lawfulness of the indebtedness was an indispensable first step. Comments in the report of the Independent Expert expressed worrying shifts that indebted countries were now not allowed to develop their policies to contribute to poverty eradication efforts and did not take into account true history of the debt crisis. The fight for social justice could only be won with due attention being given to these matters.
KATRINE THOMASEN, of the International Service for Human Rights, warmly welcomed the report on human rights defenders. The work of the Special Representative had had a tangible impact on the protection of human rights workers. Her focus on women defenders had raised awareness on the specific risks for women defenders. On indicators, could she share best practices on how stakeholders could use the indicators? What could the Council do to strengthen the work of human rights defenders?
RAFENDI DJAMIN, of the International NGO Forum on Indonesian Development, said that in spite of the visible progress in Indonesia’s democratic development, human rights defenders continued to experience serious constraints in conducting their activities. As the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights defenders had mentioned, the military, the police, and other security and intelligence officials, as well as religious fundamentalist groups continued to harass and intimidate human rights defenders by restricting their access to victims and to sights of human rights violations. Though there had been some progress on fundamental freedoms since Suharto stepped down in 1998, problems remained. Some local governments had applied Sharia inspired bylaws that caused violence against human rights defenders, particularly against women.
Concluding Remarks on Reports on Human Rights Defenders, Violence against Women and Effects of Economic Reform Policies and Foreign Debt on Human Rights
HINA JILANI, Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights defenders, in concluding remarks, said with regard to interpretation of the definition of human rights defenders, she believed there was little scope for arbitrary interpretation of the issue at hand. The definition gave a good indication to those who came under the scope of the mandate. The indicators in the report were clear and coherent and were not intended to replace analysis but rather complement them. The Special Rapporteur agreed that special attention could be paid to those human rights defenders whose rights were more vulnerable or where legal frameworks of the right they aimed to promote were weak. The status of human rights defenders could be abused; however efforts had been made to obviate that occurrence so as to ensure a diligent approach to the criteria laid down in the declaration.
When there was a concern about the explanation that was afforded to the Government it was duly explained in line with the specifications of the mandate, the Special Representative stated.
The principle of accountability applied to all, governments and human rights defenders alike. The processes for accountability of human rights defenders may not always be the same as those of the State. Processes should not infringe on the independence of the human rights defenders or be used in a way they could intimidate, harass or obstruct them in carrying out their functions. The sum total of the work of the Special Rapporteurs must be part of the Universal Periodic Review process. It was hoped that the measures used in the Universal Periodic Review process would embrace the measures laid out in the report of the Special Representative.
YAKIN ERTÜRK, Special Rapporteur on violence against women and its causes and consequences, in concluding remarks, congratulated Algeria for lifting its reservation on the article in the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women on nationality. She agreed with Algeria and Ghana with respect to the shortness of her visits; she had wished to carry out longer ones, however, the missions did cover extensive areas and she had been able to meet with diverse actors. She had enjoyed the dialogue with the different actors. On Ghana, the prevalence of peace and security in the country was giving them an advantage. She expressed her happiness over the invitation by Moldova. On the indicators, all details were included in annex 5. Also, two General Assembly resolutions had acknowledged her work and were building on it. On the testimonies, they could not help the database work alone. She noted that her report had merely been a proposal to start a debate and she had the feeling that she had reached the goal in light of today’s dialogue.
BERNARDS ANDREW NYAMWAYA MUDHO, Independent Expert on the effects of economic reform policies and foreign debt on the full enjoyment of human rights, particularly economic, social and cultural rights, in concluding remarks, said that it was fitting that for his last report there was a record number of delegations that commented on his report. In response to Pakistan’s questions on contributions, he argued that the optimum level of resources was debatable but that the 0.7% of GDP target, set by all countries, would be a significant step to addressing these economic development issues.
In response to a question from the Government of Slovenia, on behalf of the European Union, Mr. Mudho addressed the issue of how to resolve conflicting and contradictory policy recommendations. With regards to the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, he wanted to clarify that he did not wish to denounce international financial institutions but encouraged them to consider human rights assessments in their policy work and agendas. In response to a number of other questions posed to him, he took into account all of the relevant statements and would consider them thoroughly with respect to the review of this mandate.
Reports on Right to Adequate Housing and Minority Issues
The Council has before it the report of the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living, and on the right to non-discrimination in this context, Miloon Kothari (A/HRC/7/16 and Add.1-4), which reviews the activities of the Special Rapporteur since his appointment in 2000. It also provides a number of recommendations to the Council in relation to the main obstacles to the realization of the human right to adequate housing (lack of legislation and implementation of the right to adequate housing, homelessness, forced evictions, discrimination, access to water and basic services and affordability) and on the development of the mandate. The Special Rapporteur underlines the utmost importance that the struggle against discrimination plays in the realization of the right to adequate housing. He also recalls the tools elaborated during his term (the Basic Principles and Guidelines on Development-Based Evictions and Displacement, the questionnaire on women and adequate housing, the questionnaire on the right to adequate housing, and the development of indicators to monitor progressive realization of the right to adequate housing) and encourages relevant actors to employ them. The Special Rapporteur strongly advocates a combination of a humanitarian and human rights approach to address the situation of millions of people living in grossly inadequate housing conditions and those facing homelessness and landlessness. To develop the mandate, he proposes issues for further consideration, including the recognition of the link between access to land and the human right to adequate housing; natural disasters and humanitarian emergencies; climate change; and the role of civil society. He finally addresses and reiterates a set of recommendations elaborated during his term, including on women’s rights to housing.
A first addendum contains summaries of communications sent by the Special Rapporteur to States, responses received from States, observations of the Special Rapporteur, and follow-up communications and activities relating to earlier communications, and replies received, for the period roughly covering 2007. He regrets once again that the majority of Governments have failed to respond, or have done so in a selective manner. A large number of the communications in the period under review are related to cases of forced evictions. A growing number of communications relates to threats, harassment, and imprisonment of human rights defenders and activists working on the right to adequate housing. The Special Rapporteur also notes that a large number of complaints and reports he receives relate to indigenous peoples and minorities, including Roma population.
The report of the Special Rapporteur's mission to Spain, contained in a second addendum, notes with satisfaction that adequate housing is recognized as a constitutional right in Spain and points to positive steps taken to implement that right. Nevertheless, affordability and the lack of public housing stock, in particular rental housing, has affected large sectors of the population. One of the most significant elements of Spanish housing policy is the priority given during the last decades to the homeownership model. The Special Rapporteur believes that the current homeownership model and its possible negative impact on low-income housing options should be seriously reflected upon and necessitates State intervention in the market. Recommendations include a comprehensive and coordinated national housing policy based on human rights and the protection of the most vulnerable as well as heavy penalization of practices such as “real estate mobbing”, corruption and discrimination in the real estate sector.
A third addendum contains findings of the Special Rapporteur's mission to South Africa, which acknowledges that South Africa has put in place a number of progressive legislative measures and policies aimed at fulfilling the right to adequate housing. Yet, a significant number of South Africans do not have access to this basic human right. The realization of the right to adequate housing in South Africa is hampered by the Government’s fragmented approach to the implementation of housing law and policy, as well as market forces representing real estate speculation trends, and considers that urgent action must be taken to improve access to adequate housing. There is a particular need to restructure the rental housing policy for low-income groups, to guarantee security of tenure for tenants and to formulate a specific national policy for special housing needs.
A fourth addendum sets out the preliminary note on the Special Rapporteur's visit to Canada, which looks at good practices, issues of concern – such as homelessness, women and their right to adequate housing, Aboriginal populations’ adequate housing and the possible impact of the 2010 Olympic Games on the right to adequate housing in Vancouver – and makes preliminary recommendations, including the need to commit stable and long-term funding to a comprehensive national housing strategy and to embark again on large scale building of social housing. Specific funding should be directed to groups particularly vulnerable to discrimination including women, Aboriginal people, the elderly, youth and migrants.
The Council has before it the report of the Independent Expert on minority issues, Gay McDougall (A/HRC/7/23 and Add.1-4), which looks at the thematic work undertaken by the Independent Expert over the past year on issues relating to the discriminatory denial or deprivation of citizenship as a tool for exclusion of national, ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities – including the convening an expert seminar on the subject in Geneva in December 2007. Minorities often face discrimination and exclusion, and they struggle to gain access to their human rights, even under conditions of full and unquestioned citizenship. Denying or stripping them of citizenship can be an effective method of compounding their vulnerability, and can even lead to mass expulsion. Many minorities live in a precarious legal situation because they are often denied or deprived of the right to citizenship. Among recommendations are that fundamental fairness, including the right to appeal, must be guaranteed in all immigration and citizenship procedures; with limited exceptions, States must not consider citizenship a condition for the enjoyment of human rights; and States must register all children and issue birth certificates immediately after birth in a non-discriminatory manner. The United Nations Refugee Agency and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights should also undertake a study to reveal further the dimensions of the statelessness problems of minorities globally.
A first addendum provides summaries of letters of allegation and urgent appeals sent by the Independent Expert from 29 July 2005 to 25 December 2007, as well as summaries of Government replies received. In addition, it presents thematic communications sent to United Nations Member States over the same period and notes responses received.
A second addendum contains the Independent Expert's findings on her 2007 mission to France, where serious discrimination is experienced by members of minority communities, clearly targeted at those “visible” minorities of immigrant heritage, many of whom are French citizens. Particular problems faced by people in “sensitive” suburbs are a direct consequence of discrimination and consequently require policy initiatives to address the special circumstances they face. Discrimination against minorities manifests itself in the allocation of housing, access to employment, quality of education, and grossly inadequate levels of political participation. There is a general climate of suspicion and negativity against those of immigrant origin, generated in part by public debates over immigration policies, the announcement of quotas for deportations and questions of DNA testing. While commending recent anti-discrimination initiatives, including the 2004 Anti-discrimination Law, fulfilling the negative obligation of non-discrimination is not enough to secure equality in practice. The State is under a positive obligation to create favourable conditions for the exercise of the rights of minorities.
[A third addendum, containing the report of the Independent Expert's joint mission to the Dominican Republic with the Special Rapporteur on racism, and addendum four, are both currently unavailable.]
Presentation of Reports on Right to Adequate Housing and Minority Issues
MILOON KOTHARI, Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living and on the right to non-discrimination in this context, introducing his report, said that the creation of his mandate had permitted better exposure of these rights. It had also made the indivisibility between all human rights even more obvious. He was happy to report that adequate housing was now increasingly recognized by courts as a distinct and fully justifiable right. It was hoped that the work of the past seven years had convinced all members of the Council that without the recognition of this right, many other human rights would remain unfulfilled. The realization of the right to adequate housing encountered numerous problems. Throughout his country missions he had proposed protection measures for the right to adequate housing, including a call for a combination of a humanitarian and a human rights approach. It was essential to recognize the right to adequate housing through legislation policy and through budgetary commitment. States should devise strategies to ensure the implementation of the right to adequate housing. The design of policies and programmes should be based on a human rights framework. A majority of lawyers had very little training and knowledge of human rights, especially economic, social and cultural rights. This greatly hampered efforts to implement the right to adequate housing. Positive steps had been taken by members of the Council. France and Scotland were examples in regard to progressive legislations and policies. Policies recently announced in Australia were also praised.
On his three last missions, Mr. Kothari said that in Spain, it was now imperative that the justiciability of the right to adequate housing was translated into law and policy systems. Since his visit, additional positive steps had been taken by the authorities. It was believed that practices such as corruption and discrimination in the real estate sector should be heavily penalized. Of concern was the housing affordability. This was impacting groups with lower income. The situation of migrant workers was also worrying. On his visit to South Africa, challenges remained enormous. A significant number of people did not have access to the basic human right to adequate housing. Positive progress had been made in the area of water. On his mission in Canada, he believed that the country should revert back to policies that in the past had allowed achieving remarkable housing successes. A significant number of people were seen living in inadequate housing, under great financial stress.
GAY McDOUGALL, United Nations Independent Expert on minority issues, said that she had chosen this year to focus on the issue of minorities and the discriminatory denial or deprivation of citizenship. The situation of minorities was often closely linked with citizenship and the conceptualization of national identity. Persons belonging to minority groups often struggled to access their human rights even under conditions of full and unquestioned citizenship, but denying or stripping them of citizenship could effectively compound their vulnerability, even raising the spectre of mass expulsion and statelessness. The experiences of minorities in all regions of the world demonstrated those realities. On the basis of those concerns she had convened an expert consultation on 6 and 7 December 2007 to consider the issue of the discriminatory denial and deprivation of citizenship as a tool for the exclusion of minorities, during which affected communities, regional experts, United Nations agencies and civil society had shared knowledge and experiences. In addition, in October 2007 she had sent a questionnaire to United Nations Member States requesting information on issues related to minorities and citizenship, and had received over 40 substantive responses that had proved extremely valuable in considering those issues.
Ms. McDougall highlighted that disfavoured minority groups were the disproportionate targets of State actions that denied or deprived the right of citizenship. Many minorities lived in a precarious legal situation because they were often denied or deprived of the right to citizenship. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, close to 15 million people in more than 49 countries were stateless and their numbers appeared to be increasing. While international law recognized the prerogative of States to determine their own citizenship laws, the exercise of that prerogative had to comply with the State's human rights obligations, including the rights of minorities. Those distinctions that were permissible for States to make between citizens and non-citizens could not be made on the basis of gender, race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin. The consequences of denying or depriving citizenship to minority groups were considerable: negatively impacting the affected persons' living conditions and the degree of their integration into society, as well as the right to their collective cultural identity, freedom to practise minority religions, and also affecting ownership rights, employment and access to services. The marginalization and disenfranchisement of minority groups might undermine conditions of human security and sow the seeds for underdevelopment and unrest. In extreme situations, repercussions could be severe for both members of particular minority groups and society as a whole, and the stability of the State. Her report identified positive practices and also contained recommendations for States.
In her mission to France, Ms. McDougall had paid particular attention to the situation of minorities living in urban suburbs, like those of Paris and Marseille, often described as urban "ghettos" or "sensitive" suburbs, which had been affected by urban upheavals in 2005 and 2007. The primary focus had been on the experiences of French citizens and long-term residents of immigrant heritage, particularly those of African origin, Muslims or those from overseas departments sometimes described as “visible” minorities. She had concluded that serious discrimination was experienced by members of minority communities in France, a fact she believed was beginning to be acknowledged by the Government. She had spoken directly with young people from minority communities who felt that their hopes and dreams were being denied and who saw no possibility of upward mobility because of their skin colour, religion, surname or address (in the ghettoes). Even people who had worked hard and truly believed in the principles of the French Republic were trapped in socially and geographically isolated urban ghettos, with unemployment over 40 per cent in some areas. The message that visible minorities heard was that people of immigrant heritage were a threat to the national identity of France. She had been impressed by some Government anti-discrimination initiatives, including the establishment of the Independent High Authority for Equality and Against Discrimination, an independent body with powers to mediate or refer discrimination cases for prosecution. But more robust approaches were required to have a deeper and far-reaching impact on persistent discrimination experienced by minorities in France. A key recommendation was that the penalties for acts of racial discrimination had to be sufficiently severe to act as a deterrent to future violations. Moreover, fulfilling the negative obligation of non-discrimination was not enough to secure equality in practice; the State was under a positive obligation to create favourable conditions for the exercise of the rights of minorities.
Statements by Concerned Countries
JAVIER GARRIGUES FLOREZ (Spain), speaking as a concerned country, said Spain was pleased to note that the findings of the report by the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing coincided with the aims of the Government. However, given the amount of initiatives undertaken by the Government since the report’s release, Spain felt that it no longer accurately represented the contemporary housing situation in Spain, in particular since the report had been drafted 16 months ago. Major changes had taken place since. Demand for rental housing had grown steadily. Environmental impacts of housing developments were now being taken into consideration. A Universal Housing Programme had also been instituted and victims of gender violence or terrorism were provided with special measures with regards to housing.
Since the visit of the Special Rapporteur, Spain’s Ministry of Housing had helped 250,000 Spanish families benefit from new housing policies, aimed in particular for low and middle income families. Virtually all the problems addressed by the Special Rapporteur had been addressed. In conclusion, while the Government appreciated the work done by the Special Rapporteur, it felt that the report had lost a great deal of relevance and accuracy given the length of time that had elapsed since the visit. As such, many recommendations made by the Special Rapporteur had already been implemented or were in the process of being addressed.
ITUMELENG WILLIAM KOTSOANE (South Africa), speaking as a concerned country, said that South Africa remained firmly committed to the progressive realisation of the right to adequate housing. South Africa was a developing state and was facing enormous challenges. The Government had provided over 2.3 million homes since 1994, benefiting almost 20 per cent of the population. There were strong constitutional protection measures and legislation to prevent illegal evictions. Judgements had clearly reaffirmed that it was the State’s duty to provide housing for people in desperate circumstances. The issue of homelessness could not be adequately addressed without addressing the issue of landlessness. To reverse the legacy of apartheid spatial planning, all urban renewal and new housing developments were now undertaken in an integrated manner. Seventy-three per cent of households now had access to electricity and 86 per cent were receiving free basic water. Much more remained to be done to reverse the negative effects of the apartheid.
NADIA STUEWER (Canada), speaking as a concerned country, thanked the Special Rapporteur on the right to adequate housing for his presentation and for the extremely valuable work he had undertaken over the past eight years. Canada noted, in particular, the focus that the Special Rapporteur had put on calling attention to the situation of women and children. Canada was a strong supporter of the importance and usefulness of the Special Procedures in the promotion and protection of human rights, including their country visits. Canada was pleased to have supported the renewal of the mandate on the right to adequate housing. Moreover, in 1999, Canada had issued an open invitation to all Special Procedures of the United Nations, and had since benefited from many such visits, including the 2007 visit of the Special Rapporteur on the right to adequate housing.
The Government of Canada was committed to the progressive realization of the right to adequate housing, in accordance with its obligations under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Canada acknowledged that, like other countries, it faced some housing challenges, including with regard to its indigenous populations. Given the importance of this question, and the numerous practical and innovative measures put in place by Canada in this area, it was disappointed at the Special Rapporteur's decision to issue a preliminary note, in place of a final report. It was Canada's view that the note and the recommendations failed to address the housing successes realized by Canada in the area of housing, and had not depicted the wide ranging nature of services and programmes available in the country.
JEAN BAPTISTE MATTEI (France), speaking as a concerned country, wished to clarify the exact title of the text, which the Independent Expert was mandated to implement. It was not the Declaration on the Rights of Minorities but the Declaration of the Rights of Persons Belonging to National, Ethnic, Religious or Linguistic Minorities. This distinction was indeed an important one as it reminded that the Declaration was based on individual rights and not on collective rights, an issue that the French Government deemed was at the heart of this report. He also requested greater detail concerning certain omissions by the Independent Expert, one example of which was the reference to non-governmental organizations that were mentioned but never explicitly named. On this basis, certain shortcuts had led to oversimplifications and conclusions that were difficult to accept.
With regards to the question of regional languages, the assertion that no other language other than French could be used as the language of instruction in State schools was false. In Corsica, for instance, instruction could be offered in both languages. The details on the construction or refurbishment of religious places of worship were also inaccurate and it was unfair to state that the Muslim community had been disadvantaged in this respect. In fact, in the last year alone, more than one place of Muslim worship had been constructed per week in France. Concerning statistics, it should be noted that the use of ethnic data could only be used in very specific and anonymous circumstances. He also reminded the Independent Expert that there was a separation of political power and rule of law in France and so prosecution of discriminatory acts was not in the power of the Government but rested with the judiciary. The Government also wished to announce a plan of urban renovation that was underway with a view to encouraging social and economic integration in segregated communities. In conclusion, it was regrettable that the report did not accurately reflect the situation of minorities in France and the Government reiterated its commitment to providing equality and freedom for all peoples living on its territory.
Interactive Dialogue on Reports on Adequate Housing and on Minority Issues
IMAD ZUHAIRI (Palestine), speaking on behalf of the Arab Group, said that the right to housing was a basic human right and the Arab Group supported the continuation of this mandate. Further efforts were needed to improve results and to mobilise the world opinion in order to improve technical cooperation between Governments and relevant United Nations bodies. When speaking about the right to housing, the Arab Group had to raise the violations and Israeli measures that continued in Palestine and occupied Arab territories including the building racist separation walls, destroying villages and placing settlers in place of the original inhabitants which were contradictory to the Geneva accords and international humanitarian and human rights law. The Arab Group also strongly condemned the Israeli occupation power for annexing occupied Jerusalem with the aim of making it more Jewish and destroying its historical sites. The latest decision concerned the decision to build 750 new settlement units and approving another 400 units. Since the end of the Annapolis Conference, Israel had decided to build more new settlement units in east Jerusalem than was carried out in 2005.
JASNA MUSI (Slovenia), speaking on behalf of the European Union, noted that the Independent Expert on minority issues had undertaken consultations with regional and national institutions, including the Organization of American States, with respect to standard setting and effective mechanisms to combat discrimination. The European Union asked if the Independent Expert was planning similar consultations with other regional mechanisms and what role could national human rights institutions play in those efforts? Also, noting her efforts to closely cooperate with the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, did the Independent Expert envisage closer cooperation with other treaty bodies, such as the Human Rights Committee?
The European Union also asked the Special Rapporteur on the right to adequate housing a number of questions with regard to recommendations for the new mandate holder, including how to further develop indicators on the right to adequate housing, and in particular what role the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT) could play in that regard. Also, referring to the lack of policy or legislation which had been identified as the biggest obstacle to the full realization of the right to adequate housing, would it be helpful to compile best practices in that regard, and were there other specific groups, aside from those mentioned in the report, such as women, children and indigenous people, that required special attention?
REINHARD SCHWEPPE (Germany) said that together with Finland, Germany was the main sponsor of the Human Rights Council resolution on adequate housing as a component to an adequate standard of living. The Government of Germany attached great importance to this mandate and with great interest asked the Special Rapporteur to elaborate on the “Basic principles and guidelines on development-based evictions and displacement”. In his report, Mr. Kothari had mentioned that he had already received positive comments by States regarding these guidelines and the Government therefore wished to know more about his practical experiences with these guidelines, particularly in recent field missions.
Right of Reply
ENOS MAFEMBA (Zimbabwe), speaking in a right of reply, said that Zimbabwe was concerned about the attempts by the European Union, Australia and the United States to use the interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteurs as a platform to launch unwarranted attacks on Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe knew that in London there were still persons that had a wish to control Zimbabwe’s land. Representatives were trying to tell wrong stories. The Zimbabwean Justice Minister had, last week, in his address before the Council, announced that the parliament had unanimously passed a constitutional amendment on media laws. Who was Australia to judge an internal process? Concerning the United States, the Government in Washington was a nightmare. Guatanamo, Abu Gharib, secret flights and waterboarding were no examples of human rights. In March, Zimbabwe would conduct elections that were planned to be democratic, if those countries would refrain from attempting to influence the process. The European Union was trying to enact a regime change, as decided by London.
RANIA AL RIFAIY (Syria), speaking in a right of reply, said that finally the United States had decided to take part in the activities of the Council, and it had chosen the subject of human rights defenders to talk about what it claimed was arbitrary detention. The United States had no claim to challenge the human rights records of other countries, given the scandalous conditions in Abu Gharib and Guantanamo Bay prisons, which would be registered in the black pages of history. The term flying prison was another term that had been minted to describe the illegal practices carried out by the United States. And what about the case of the Palestinian journalist being jailed in Israel for the sole crime of revealing human rights violations in the Syrian Arab Golan? Syria asked that speakers refrain from politicisation in addressing the Council.
ASADOLLAH ESHRAGH JAHROMI (Iran), speaking in a right of reply, responded to the false accusations made by the United States against Iran. The rights of “genuine” human rights defenders were protected in Iran. To date, no one had been detained for merely being a journalist or a human rights activist. It was naturally expected that a country that falsely accused countries was itself guilty of such acts as telephone tapping, inspection of private mails and e-mails, and allowing torture and other forms of cruel or degrading treatment to take place.
1Joint statement on behalf of: Asia Pacific Forum on Women, Law and Development; International NGO Forum on Indonesian Development; Asian Legal Resource Centre; Center for Organization Research and Education; and Pax Romana.
2Joint statement on behalf of: Europe-Third World Centre; Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples; International League for the Rights and Liberation of peoples; France Libertés – Fondation Danielle Mitterrand; and Women's International League for Peace and Freedom.
For use of the information media; not an official record
HRC08023E