HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL REVIEWS MANDATES ON ARBITRARY EXECUTIONS, HUMAN RIGHTS OF MIGRANTS, TRANSNATIONAL CORPORATIONS AND EXTREME POVERTY
The Human Rights Council this morning held review, rationalization and improvement processes for the mandates of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants and the Independent Expert on the question of human rights and extreme poverty.
Sweden, introducing the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, said the mandate reflected the need to address killings that had taken place in circumstances that contravened international law. One of the principal working methods of the Special Rapporteur involved sending urgent appeals, requesting action by Governments in response to emergency cases and responding to individual complaints by communicating the details to Governments with a summary of the facts and a request for clarification.
Philip Alston, the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, said it was not a coincidence that it was the first individual thematic mandate ever established by the Commission on Human Rights, and that it dealt with the most basic of rights, the right to life. There was no doubt that the phenomenon of unlawful killings by law enforcement and security agencies continued to occur worldwide. Some such killings occurred in the normal course of law enforcement activities; others took place in the context of crowd control or responding to riots or civil disturbances. He said that he had addressed such cases in a huge array of countries.
Delegations supported the mandate of the Special Rapporteur, but qualified that the mandate could be reconducted. Also, the Special Rapporteur was asked to strictly follow the Code of Conduct. Others said making changes to the mandate, in particular that of the Special Rapporteur, should not be accepted. A distinction had to be made between the renewal of the mandate and the renewal of the mandate-holder. Some had concerns regarding the current mandate holder.
Speaking in the interactive dialogue on the mandate on extrajudicial executions were Slovenia on behalf of the European Union, Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the Russian Federation, Cuba, India, the Philippines, Egypt, Switzerland, Uruguay, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Argentina, Chile, Singapore, Norway, Belgium, Colombia, Austria and Algeria.
The following non-governmental organizations also took the floor: Amnesty International and Comite chretien pour les droits humains en Amerique Latine.
Mexico, introducing the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on human rights of migrants, said that in order to address the great needs of the migrants, the work of the Special Rapporteur was essential. Migrants constituted a vulnerable sector of humanity. Migrants should not be alien to the work of human rights. The mandate of the Special Rapporteur consisted of examining the needs to overcome obstacles of the human rights for this vulnerable group.
Jorge Bustamante, the Special Rapporteur on human rights of migrants, said although progress had been made in clarifying the normative framework for the protection of migrants, especially with regard to the adoption of the International Convention on the Protection of Human Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families, and in the institutional responses by both governments and the United Nations system, the number of abuses against migrants both documented and in an irregular situations had not diminished. With the flows of migrants shifting because of new political and economic realities, promoting human rights of migrants remained a central issue of importance. A strong normative framework was needed.
In the discussion on the mandate, speakers said the vulnerable situation of millions of migrants worldwide was recognized. Migrants made major contributions to the economy, society and culture of the countries receiving them. Promotion of human rights, non-discrimination and equal opportunities played crucial roles in the context of integration of migrants. Speakers encouraged the renewal of the mandate.
Participating in the discussion were Chile on behalf of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries, Slovenia on behalf of the European Union, the Philippines, Senegal, Brazil and Turkey.
The following non-governmental organizations also took the floor: Comite chretien pour les droits humains en Amerique Latine and Association of World Citizens.
Norway, introducing the mandate of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, said corporations had a clear responsibility to support universal values agreed among Governments worldwide. There was no excuse for companies not to pay attention to human rights. Like all other kinds of human activity, corporate action carried moral responsibility.
John Ruggie, Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, said his final report identified a policy framework for moving the agenda forward. The mapping exercise was completed, the policy framework identified and it was now time to move toward practical suggestions and initiatives. If his mandate was renewed, he would work in the future as he had in the past, with inclusive consultation and engagement of all actors.
In the debate, speakers attached considerable importance to the continuation of the mandate. The role of States in effectively regulating and adjudicating the role of transnational corporations and other business enterprises with regard to human rights, including through international cooperation, was fundamental in this mandate. There was a request that the mandate of the Special Rapporteur be expanded to cover private military and security companies.
Participating in the discussion were Slovenia on behalf of the European Union, Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, Switzerland, Egypt, Canada, Malaysia, Cuba, South Africa, Bangladesh, Nigeria and Belgium.
The following non-governmental organizations also took the floor: Europe Third World Centre, International Commission of Jurists, India Movement Tupaj Amaru, and Bischolfliches Hifswerk Misereor.
France, introducing the motion to extend the mandate of the Independent Expert on human rights and extreme poverty, said that extreme poverty was a challenge to human rights. Since its inception, the mandate had been reviewed three times. Each renewal brought new emphasis on measures to combat extreme poverty. France had confidence that all States supported the work of the Independent Expert.
Magdalena Sepulveda, the Independent Expert on the question of human rights and extreme poverty, said even though there had been some progress in the reduction of poverty in some countries, that progress had not been uniform and in certain countries the number of people living in extreme poverty had actually increased. For human beings, living in extreme poverty translated into a denial of access to a whole range of civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights.
In the debate, speakers supported the renewal of the mandate. They said extreme poverty was a violation of human dignity. The mandate must address the root causes of extreme poverty. Extreme poverty persisted all over the world and would continue to increase. The food crisis was increasing this risk.
Speaking were Slovenia on behalf of the European Union, Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, Senegal, Turkey and Algeria.
The following non-governmental organizations also took the floor: Mouvement contre le racisme et pour l’Amitie entre les Peuples and Fransiscans Internaional, also speaking on behalf of the International Movement ATD Fourth World.
The Council is holding three back-to-back meetings today from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. When it resumed its work at noon, the Council started a discussion on human rights of women with a panel discussion on violence against women - identification of priorities.
Review, Rationalization and Improvement of Mandate of Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions
HANS DAHLGREN (Sweden), introducing the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, said that Sweden had been a main sponsor of this mandate for several years. It was known that there had been strong views on the resolutions they had presented on this subject, some in favour and sometimes against. But it had always been recognised that the mandate dealt with a real and extremely serious human rights problem. The mandate dated back to 1982; it had been the first thematic mandate. From time to time, there had been a debate about the exact meaning of the words “extrajudicial”, “summary, and “arbitrary”. Sweden believed that it would not be particularly productive to continue that debate at this time. The mandate reflected the need to address killings that had taken place in circumstances that contravened international law. One of the principal working methods of the Special Rapporteur involved sending urgent appeals, requesting action by Governments in response to emergency cases and responding to individual complaints by communicating the details to Governments with a summary of the facts and a request for clarification. His activities could be summarized as consultations, communications and visits. Visits by the Special Rapporteur had increased over the years and had led to productive and constructive results on the ground.
PHILIP ALSTON, Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, said that he welcomed the review, rationalization and improvement process in relation to the mandate on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, which he had the privilege to hold. It was not a coincidence that it was the first individual thematic mandate ever established by the Commission on Human Rights, and that it dealt with the most basic of rights, the right to life. There was no doubt that the phenomenon of unlawful killings by law enforcement and security agencies continued to occur worldwide. Some such killings occurred in the normal course of law enforcement activities; others took place in the context of crowd control or responding to riots or civil disturbances. He said that he had addressed such cases in a huge array of countries. They had arisen in both developed and developing countries alike.
In conflict situations around the world, questions about whether military action had taken place in conformity with the rules of international humanitarian law inevitably arose on a regular basis. This was illustrated most recently by the report earlier this week in relation to NATO and United States forces in Afghanistan.
He attached great importance to the more complex legal issues that came under the mandate. The report had mainly concentrated on issues arising at the country level. He believed that these matters were better dealt with in the specific country reports and in the communications addendum.
Instead he produced detailed analyses of a range of issues including those dealt with this year such as pardons, prisoners running prisons, and commissions of inquiry. In his country visits he attached great importance to meeting with the widest possible range of actors and had sought to reflect all views in his reports.
VESNA MOKOREL (Slovenia), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the European Union attached great important to the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, which was the oldest thematic mandate. It was still a crucial mandate. Its necessity was as evident now as in 1982. The tragedy of executions still continued and gaps in knowledge remained which limited the international community’s ability to respond. The European Union supported the resolution on executions at the General Assembly of the United Nations. Since inception of the mandate the tools at the disposal of the Special Rapporteur have helped with the mandate. Cooperation with other mandate holders ensured a complete picture of challenges and possibilities. The European Union asked the Special Rapporteur what approaches would help produce a fruitful dialogue with countries? And could the Special Rapporteur elaborate any gaps that existed in his mandate?
MAZHAR IQBAL (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, said that the Organization of the Islamic Conference attached great importance to the mandate and believed that it was dealing with an important topic. The contributions of the successive mandate holders were recognised. The mandate could be reconducted. Also, the Special Rapporteur was asked to strictly follow the Code of Conduct.
NATALIA ZOLOTOVA (Russian Federation) said that the Russian Federation shared a general view of the importance of dealing with extrajudicial, arbitrary and summary executions and supported the renewal of the mandate. Efforts of work were laid out in the Special Procedures of the Council. The Russian Federation asked Mr. Alston whether he thought that the Special Procedures and the Code of Conduct had been presented to the Council in accordance with the General Assembly. Making changes to the mandate, in particular that of the Special Rapporteur, should not be accepted.
Resolution 5/1 stated the term of office of the mandate holder was three years, after which the mandate should be reviewed. The Council should take a decision to review the mandate or should change the mandate or the Special Rapporteur.
YURI GALA (Cuba) said the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions was established after years of debate. The establishment of the Working Group on forced disappearances led to the creation of this mandate. To date the mandate had been renewed on several occasions. The mandate had been and continued to be of great importance for the United Nations and the international community. The current Special Rapporteur appointed in August 2004 had produced many valuable reports. His report on armed conflicts was very brave. Cuba considered there should be an extension of the mandate. Cuba would work to secure the extension.
MUNU MAHAWAR (India) said that the mandate had been the first thematic mandate. Its importance could not be over-emphasized and India supported its renewal. A distinction had to be made between the renewal of the mandate and the renewal of the mandate-holder. Renewing the mandate-holder’s term depended on whether the mandate holder had been able to discharge his mandate in an objective manner; whether he had been able to constructively engage with various stakeholders and whether he had adhered to and respected the terms of reference. It was also important that he adhered to the provisions of the Code of Conduct. The debate with the Special Rapporteur earlier in the session had raised many questions and they needed to be addressed in the course of the review, rationalisation and improvement of his mandate.
DENIS Y. LEPATAN (Philippines) said that the Philippines supported the delegation of Sweden on the presentation for the renewal of the mandate. The Philippines had serious concerns regarding the current mandate holder, but would not restate them. They did not expect the Special Rapporteur to employ judicial procedures in States’ cases, and there should be closer consultation on these cases. The Philippines recognized the need for more independence in the work conducted by the Special Rapporteur, but said it should be noted with objectivity. They believed that the Special Rapporteur should adhere to the mandate as adopted by States.
OMAR SHALABY (Egypt) said the importance of the mandate lay first and foremost in the crucial matters it addressed. Egypt supported the extension of the mandate. It asked if it would not be of value to reframe the mandate in the context of the right to life, as the Special Rapporteur had said a few minutes ago. The greatest number of killings took place in armed conflict and it would be a mistake to exclude these killings. Induced abortion, when not supported by a medical force majeure, should also be examined. The State had an obligation to protect those under its jurisdiction. The application of the death penalty as envisaged under human rights law was not an extrajudicial killing. Egypt was still uncomfortable about the consideration of this issue, as a matter of principle, under the mandate of summary executions. The Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions could make a contribution to the debate. The Special Rapporteur’s mandate should be transformed into a full-fledged working group, such as that on detention.
MURIEL BERSET (Switzerland) expressed Switzerland’s gratitude to the Special Rapporteur for his work. Through his objective reports he had always played an important role for the Council. His transparency and frankness were appreciated. It was underlined that the independence of Special Rapporteurs was crucially important when conducting mandates. The right to life was universal and should be protected by all Governments. Switzerland condemned all forms of arbitrary executions. The mandate was supported and Switzerland called all States to provide the Special Rapporteur with the information he requested as well as to answer his requests for visits.
MARIA LOURDES BONE (Uruguay) said that Uruguay condemned all acts of violence involving police or interagency State members. Uruguay valued the principles of democracy and attached great importance on fighting extrajudicial killings. It was aware that much still needed to be done. As such Uruguay supported the renewal of the mandate in order to continue the work of the Special Rapporteur.
RAJIVA WIJESINHA (Sri Lanka) said Sri Lanka had a long history of cooperation with the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. It was committed to continue its cooperation with the Special Rapporteur. Sri Lanka strongly supported the extension of the mandate and supported several statements made by others. There must be a distinction drawn between renewal of mandates and that of mandate holders. The current holder had failed to understand his terms of reference. He failed to achieve the standards of mandate holders regarding transparency with States. He also failed to carry out his mandate in an objective manner.
MUSTAFIZUR RAHMAN (Bangladesh) said that Bangladesh attached great importance to the Special Procedures for the promotion and protection of human rights. The mandate of the Special Rapporteur was one of the oldest mandates and it had made significant contributions in creating awareness and generating public opinion on the topic. Bangladesh was convinced of the need to renew the mandate. However, renewal of the mandate and of the mandate-holder were two different issues. The renewal of the mandate-holder depended on his performance in discharging the mandate.
SEBASTIAN ROSALES (Argentina) said that Argentina firmly agreed with the importance of the Special Procedures and the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. Since 1982 the mandate holders had carried out work on this important issue. Many changes had been made since, changes such as the inclusion of gender roles. The important strides made through this mandate included such elements as the country missions and reports. Argentina appreciated Professor Alston’s work and supported the renewal of mandate within the framework of the Human Rights Council.
EDUARDO CHIHUAILAF (Chile) thanked the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. Chile congratulated the Special Rapporteur for the way he discharged his mandate. Extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary executions still occurred around the world. Chile attached great importance to the mandate. The world needed the role of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and Chile supported the extension of the mandate.
TAN YORK CHOR (Singapore) said that Singapore fully supported the mandate of the Special Rapporteur. Singapore noted that mandate-holders had limited time and available resources. Hence, one should ask how to improve the mandate to make it less unclear or arbitrary. Did the issues like prisons, crimes against women and so on stem from the mandate? They were important issues but there was perhaps a lack of clear definition of what constituted extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. Since serious differences in understanding the mandate had emerged, Member States had the duty and responsibility to repair the situation. One could not pretend that there was no problem, when a number of States had expressed their misgivings over the way things were done.
BEATE STIRO (Norway) said Norway strongly supported the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. The mandate addressed the grave problem of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions around the world. Norway thanked Professor Alston for taking up the post of the mandate holder and for his exceptional work. This mandate had been put in place to prevent unlawful killings in a constructive and fair manner. Norway believed that country visits were of great importance and supported the continuation of dialogue between Governments and the mandate holders. The right to life was of the greatest importance and needed the contribution of the Special Rapporteur in preventing the unlawful continuation of such acts. Further, Norway fully supported the renewal of the mandate and the protection of human rights.
BART OUVRY (Belgium) said the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions was still as useful now as when it was established. Belgium appreciated the seriousness with which Professor Alston carried out his task. His recent report showed the importance of his work. It called on all States to engage in dialogue with the Special Rapporteur, especially those that had not responded to his requests for information or visits. Belgium supported the extension of the mandate.
ALVARO ENRIQUE AYALA MELENDEZ (Colombia) said that Colombia attached great importance to the renewal of the Special Rapporteur’s mandate. The Constitution of Colombia proclaimed that the right to life was important and that no one should be submitted to enforced disappearances or arbitrary killings. Mechanisms like this mandate ensured the better promotion and protection of human rights. It was of outmost importance that the work was carried out in line with the Code of Conduct. Full support was expressed for the mandate.
EVA SCHOFER (Austria) said that Austria supported the statement made by Slovenia on behalf of the European Union. Austria attached great importance to the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. The mandate was established over 20 years ago. Acts of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions would probably continue for many years to come. Therefore the work had great importance in the efforts to continue to combat these acts. Professor Alston had helped States to understand the difficult cases faced in many States. The information had been conveyed in a direct way and this did not mean that it had been completed outside the mandate. The lack of cooperation of many States with the mandate holder was a major problem. Article 5/2 of the Code of Conduct, which called for the cooperation of the States with the mandate holders, should be adhered to. Austria strongly supported the renewal of the mandate.
LARBI DJACTA (Algeria) thanked the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. Since the creation of the mandate, it had changed. There was a difference between the mandate and the mandate holder. The three-year term of mandate holders had to be reviewed. The Human Rights Council had to look at this issue. It should consider adapting the mandate to the Code of Conduct. The Special Rapporteur’s report was far from his mandate. There was a clear approach which must be followed and he had not done so.
PATRIZIA SCANELLA, of Amnesty International, said that the Special Rapporteur had undertaken important analysis on key issues falling within the mandate. Regarding the death penalty, he had considered the subjective interpretation by some States of international law, which provided for imposition of the death penalty for the most serious crimes. Successive mandate-holders had highlighted killings perpetrated by non-state actors and had presented information and recommendations concerning killings with a gender perspective dimension. Extrajudicial executions were not a thing of the past. The mandate was much needed today. The Council was called upon to renew the mandate.
JORGE TAFUR, of Juridical Commission for Auto-Development of First Andean Peoples (CAPAJ), said that the annual report of the United States Government to congress on human rights in the world was useful. It stated that in Latin America, Ecuador used excessive force by police and abuse and occasional killings were discovered. The organization was not seeking to add new points on the agenda item for the review, rationalization and improvement of the mandate, but did encourage the Special Rapporteur to visit the country.
PHILIP ALSON, Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, said in reply that he welcomed the opportunity of the review, rationalization, and improvement process. He had listened with great interest. He had always approached his mandate with the hope that he would stimulate attention, encourage Governments and others to reflect on the issues raised, and the diversity of the views expressed gave him some reason for satisfaction in that regard. The topic of the mandate was never destined to be very popular with many governments. All speakers acknowledged that the issues were important and that they were high on the international agenda. The mandate was an important one. Questions about the scope of the mandate were not for him to decide, but for the Human Rights Council. He believed he applied the mandate in an appropriate manner. He welcomed the comments on the importance of focusing on executions at the time of armed conflict. He believed that a Code of Conduct was a good idea. The current Code was a good document that he had worked very hard to respect and he believed he had stayed within it.
HANS DAHLGREN (Sweden), wrapping up the discussion, thanked the delegations that had actively engaged in the debate. It seemed that as the mandate had developed over the years and some differences in opinions had developed. It was expected that all would look beyond these differences. Even if there had been some differences of views, there had always been a strong consensus on the importance of this mandate. Sweden planned to build on this consensus in the discussions leading to the renewal of the mandate.
Review, Rationalization and Improvement of Mandate of Special Rapporteur on Human Rights of Migrants
LUIS ALFONSO DE ALBA (Mexico), introducing the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on human rights of migrants, said that in order to address the great needs of the migrants, the work of the Special Rapporteur was essential. Migrants constituted a vulnerable sector of humanity. Migrants should not be alien to the work of human rights. The mandate of the Special Rapporteur consisted of examining the needs to overcome obstacles on the human rights for this vulnerable group. The Special Rapporteur sought information from all relevant groups, such as the families of migrants and gave appropriate recommendations in addition to work in the field. This mandate had recently included the gender perspective in analysing the information. In total, the mandate to date had produced 14 reports. The Special Rapporteur had identified trends, and made relevant contributions to the issue, such as the structural issues on migration. He had consulted with Government, international agencies, and civil society. The significant contribution made by a number of countries was clear proof of the commitment and interaction with the mandate. The Special Rapporteur made a number of contributions to special forums, such as the world forum on globalization and the forum in Belgium. Future reports would continue to contribute to the protection and promotion of the human rights of migrants. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights needed to have specialized field workers continuously. The strength of the universality of human rights in general stemmed from the commitment by the international community for the people that were most vulnerable. Mexico hoped that the Council supported these views.
JORGE BUSTAMANTE, Special Rapporteur on Migrants, said the right to migrants had been central to the Human Rights Council and its predecessor. All topics central to the movement of people were central to the activities of other United Nations organisations, regional bodies, academic institutions and non governmental organisations.
Although progress had been made in clarifying the normative framework for the protection of migrants, especially with regard to the adoption of the International Convention on the Protection of Human Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families, and in the institutional responses by both governments and the United Nations system, the number of abuses against migrants both documented and in irregular situations had not diminished.
With the flows of migrants shifting because of new political and economic realities, promoting human rights of migrants remained a central issue of importance. A strong normative framework was needed. Capacity building of States involved in the protection of migrants was of the utmost importance. Missions allowed him to understand in detail the most significant challenges with regard to migration management. Written communications in the forms of allegations letters had allowed him to bring to the attention of the States the most pressing trends. In his reports he had undertaken thematic research.
Migrants would not be able to fully enjoy human rights if the States that carried the primary responsibility for protecting them lacked the capacity and knowledge to do so. It was crucial that States engaged in a continual learning process about what the body of rights of migrants consisted of, and how best to implement them. He reiterated that at a time when violence against foreign-born populations and xenophobic sentiments persisted, the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on migrants seemed more relevant and pertinent than ever.
RODRIGO DONOJO (Chile), speaking on behalf of Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries GRULAC, said that they recognised the vulnerable situation of millions of migrants worldwide. The efforts of the international community to safeguard the human rights of all migrants were supported. The major contributions to economy, society and culture made to the countries receiving migrants were recognised. The work of the Special Rapporteur was vital to promote and protect the human rights of this vulnerable group and was highly relevant. GRULAC supported the extension of the renewal of the mandate.
VESNA MOKOREL (Slovenia), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that the European Union attached great importance to the mandate and had followed with great interest the work carried out by the mandate holders since the creation of the mandate in 1999. Migration was a universal phenomenon and an estimated 200 million people lived and worked outside their countries of origin. Many of them had come to the European Union. Addressing both challenges and opportunities of migration for the benefit of all was one of the major priorities for the European Union at the start of the 21st century. The European migration policy was based on the solidarity, mutual trust and shared responsibility of the European Union and its Member States. It was also based on respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms of migrants, the Geneva Convention and due access to asylum procedures.
Promotion of human rights, non-discrimination and equal opportunities played crucial roles in the context of integration of migrants. Efforts to tackle structural barriers faced by migrant workers in Europe had been reinforced. In this context, addressing the specific needs of women migrants - who represented the majority of the immigrant population in the European Union – was important. Taking into account these concerns, the European Union believed in the continuation of this mandate which was an important part of the system of Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council. The European Union supported the renewal of this mandate.
JOSEPHINE REYNANTE (Philippines) thanked the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants. The Philippines remained a strong advocate for all migrants. It fully supported the mandate of the Special Rapporteur and believed it should be extended and strengthened. The Philippines was concerned about the amount of anti-migration rhetoric heard around the world. The mandate should focus on raising awareness on ratification of the Convention on the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, identifying and promoting best practises, identifying protection gaps, improving international cooperation, and countering negative stereotyping.
MOHAMMED LAMINE THIAW (Senegal) thanked the Special Rapporteur for his effectiveness in carrying out his mandate. The importance of the mandate was of pertinence today, in days of increased migration worldwide. In the frame of the Council, the Special Rapporteur’s reports had shown trends of increasing drastic migratory policies. The promotion and protection of the human rights of migrants in all places was fundamental. In this spirit, Senegal encouraged the renewal of the mandate.
LUCIANA ROCHA MANCINI (Brazil), commended the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants for his efforts to fulfil his mandate. Specifically Brazil aimed at addressing the criminalization of irregular migration and States’ responsibility to protect regular migrants. Irregular migrants were victims of detention and expulsion in countries. In the 1980’s over 1 billion citizens were living abroad and now this figure had increased to 4 billion. In particular, Brazil stressed the need for discussing migration in a more comprehensive way. They also seized the opportunity to thank Mr. Bustamante for accepting the invitation to go to Brazil to attend the Regional Prepcom of the Durban Conference.
FATIH ULUSOY (Turkey) said migration was a key issue for human rights. Turkey supported the extension of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants. Previously, Mexico had raised several issues, such as the need to promote migratory channels. Migrants were human beings. There was close cooperation needed between host countries, migrant communities, and counties of origin. In view of the multinational character of the issue, cooperation was essential. In renewing its sincere support of the mandate, Turkey encouraged the Special Rapporteur to take into account all important issues related to migration.
TOMAS ALARCON, of Juridical Commission for Auto-Development of First Andean Peoples (CAPAJ), said that the movement of peoples around the world was an ancestral right. Indigenous peoples had recently, in New York, asserted their right of free transit throughout the continent. The mandate of the Special Rapporteur should provide more information on how to stop penalizing the illegal work of migrant workers. The causes of migration should also be addressed.
GENEVIEVE JOURDAN, of the Association of World Citizens, said that migrants whether leaving for work or fleeing situations of violence or ecological tension for economic situations continued to increase. The respect for these people should concern everyone. The Special Rapporteur would find himself in situations in which he would require other mandates, or deal with issues that come under in which other Special Rapporteurs would need to be consulted or taken into account. Recently the WHO tried to promote the health of these people and there was a possibility to now maintain this work within WHO. In-depth work corresponding to what States needed to promote human rights could be facilitated within the WHO.
JORGE BUSTAMANTE, Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants, in final remarks, reiterated his thanks for the support he had received from delegations participating in the debate. He was committed to do his best to fulfil his mandate.
ELIA DEL CARMEN SOSA (Mexico), expressed thanks for the debate. Mexico thanked delegations for the positive contributions and it was convinced that the mandate would be renewed. It also believed that the scope of the mandate would be further defined. The professionalism of the Special Rapporteur was underlined.
Review, Rationalization and Improvement of Mandate of Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the Issue of Human Rights and Transnational Corporations
VEBJORN HEINES (Norway), introducing the mandate of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprise, said that the review, rationalization and improvement of the mandate was undertaken by a cross-regional groups of main-sponsors. The structures governing globalisation were created by national Governments and were being maintained by national Governments that were willing to surrender part of their sovereignty. But in their current form, these structures systematically favoured capital and wealth creation. For this reason corporations also had a clear responsibility to support universal values agreed among Governments worldwide. There was no excuse for companies not to pay attention to human rights. Like all other kinds of human activity, corporate action carried moral responsibility. Human rights were extensively affected by globalisation. Therefore, there was a need to strengthen the capacity for all nation States to safeguard these fundamental rights and to provide basic services. The obvious remedy was a more advanced and more coherent approach to governance, at the national, regional and global level, aiming at providing more effective protection to individuals and communities against corporate related human rights abuse. The Special Representative had constructively and in a practical way approached this complex mandate. They were very impressed by the way in which he had fulfilled this difficult mandate, and within a relatively short timeframe. He had managed to build confidence between the many different actors and to move this important issue that affected right holders all over the world forward in a substantial manner.
JOHN RUGGIE, Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprise, said he was committed to strengthening the human rights regime. His final report identified a policy framework for moving the agenda forward. He was gratified that delegations expressed broad support for the framework in the debate held earlier in the session. The future of the mandate was up to the Human Rights Council. The mapping exercise was completed, the policy framework identified and it was now time to move toward practical suggestions and initiatives. If his mandate was renewed, he would work in the future as he had in the past, with inclusive consultation and engagement of all actors. At the end of his mandate, he would provide concrete recommendations for States and companies. He would bring normative clarity to the issue. One of the elements that he saw as important was capacity building at national levels. Several delegations had suggested that he should focus on the Democratic Republic of the Congo. He agreed with the suggestion and would accept an invitation from the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. He saw his future work as including defining access to remedy, which required improvement in State and corporate means of addressing grievances. Additionally, the mandate had been approached by other actors that were concerned with human rights and businesses who were seeking closer collaboration. Working with them would be another important element of operationalization. He believed that progress had been made in developing a policy framework. The next step would be to provide more detail and content.
ZIVA NENDL (Slovenia), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that since the creation of the mandate in 2005, the Special Rapporteur had done a great deal of useful work in clarifying and developing a framework in this important area. Considerable importance was attached to the continuation of the mandate. Much more could be achieved with the aim of ensuring that States fully protected all human rights and business activities contributed to this. With a renewed mandate the Special Rapporteur would be able to continue the valuable work he had done to establish greater coherence in this field. With over 70,000 transnational corporations worldwide, relying on millions of suppliers, it would be impossible for the Special Rapporteur to accept and respond to complaints. This had to be a task that had to be part of State responsibility. The European Union strongly supported the renewal of the mandate.
SYED ALI ASAD GILLANI (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Conference, said that the Organization of the Islamic Conference attached great importance to the mandate on human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises. The role of States in effectively regulating and adjudicating the role of transnational corporations and other business enterprises with regard to human rights, including through international cooperation, was fundamental to this mandate. Human rights impact assessments of the activities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises and an early compilation of compendium of best practices of States and transnational corporations would be helpful in effective implementation of this mandate. The real challenge would be to establish a standard international mechanism to address the issue. They also thanked Mr. John Ruggie for the work he had done. The Organization of the Islamic Conference supported the continuation of this mandate.
MURIEL BERSET (Switzerland) said Switzerland attached importance to the mandate of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights and transnational corporations. It saw the latest report as a success and approved of the framework which demonstrated that businesses had responsibilities towards human rights. Switzerland invited the Human Rights Council to make concrete the mandate of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General. Switzerland supported the extension of the mandate. Switzerland had several recommendations for the mandate holder, including that he should give recommendations on how States could protect human rights in the face of abuses by corporations. It would like the Special Representative to give specific recommendations on how corporations could better protect human rights, and to draw up a clear framework on how corporations could address infractions at a corporate regional and local level. The Human Rights Council should continue the dialogue on this mandate. Switzerland asked the Human Rights Council to ask the Special Representative to provide an interim report and a final report with concrete recommendations.
OMAR SHALABY (Egypt) said that the establishment of the mandate in 2005 had been a timely measure. Egypt fully supported the mandate and the Special Representative of the Secretary-General and commended him for his work that was nothing short of exemplary in terms of expertise, dedication and proactiveness. There was little doubt that giving effect to the State duty to protect all human rights from corporate abuse would be of benefit to all. Yet, the framework and voluntarism on the part of business had their limits. Further, the task entrusted to him in examining the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo would be a good test-case for his work in monitoring specific situations. Would it not be appropriate to expand the mandate to cover also private military and security companies?
JOHN VON KAUFMANN (Canada) said that Canada welcomed the report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights and transnational corporations. Canada thanked the Special Representative for the work done over the past three years. The report’s framework of protect, respect and remedy was based on dozens of studies and workshops the Special Representative had undertaken, thus providing both an empirical and consultative foundation for further work. The Special Representative had unprecedented support for his approach, which spanned from companies through Governments to human rights organizations.
The issue of business responsibilities vis-à-vis human rights was deeply complex. While minimum labour and employment standards had largely crystallized, there continued to exist a serious lack of clarity on policy, law and practice in managing the human rights impact of business activity. The framework provided broadly-accepted principles that should now be operationalized, particularly through recommendations to Governments and guidance for companies. Canada supported the extension of the mandate for a period of two years.
AZWA AFFENDI BAKHTIAR (Malaysia) thanked the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprise. The mandate was important. While the positive outcome of globalisation existed, it brought to light the responsibilities that companies had toward human rights. The mandate had to made significant contribution to the understanding of the issue. Further work was needed. Malaysia hoped the Special Representative would continue addressing the gaps that existed in understanding the issue.
RESFEL PINO ALVAREZ (Cuba) said that the mandate was relatively recent. In his work, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General should draw on the productive work carried out by the former Subcommission on Human Rights that had studied the issue for many years. There were many cases in the southern hemisphere where transnational corporations were causing great environmental harm which affected local communities. Transnational corporations were violating civil and political rights as well as economic, social and cultural rights. Such activities should be put to an end. A clear standard of behaviour had to be set out. Cuba supported the extension of the mandate.
BEULAH NAIDOO (South Africa) welcomed the work undertaken by the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, and the progress achieved thus far. South Africa remained convinced that duties and responsibilities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises with respect to human rights currently existed in international human rights law. As such they were in support of the renewal of this mandate and the continuation of work. The mandate should also be strengthened rather than weakened or unduly restricted. There must be an assurance that the interaction with the victim communities was also integral.
MUSTAFIZUR RAHMAN (Bangladesh) thanked the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights and transnational corporations. The mandate was important. In view of the ever increasing influence of the corporate sector, the mandate had renewed importance. Bangladesh strongly supported the renewal of the mandate. There was no need to overemphasise the role that States had to protect their citizens. What was missing was an international mechanism to help those States. The framework presented by the Special Representative was an interesting one and required further work to develop it.
MARTIN IHOEGHIAN UHOMOIBHI (Nigeria) said that the Special Representative of the Secretary-General had made a phenomenal contribution since the establishment of the mandate. The mandate had succeeded in clarifying the role of States as well as business enterprises in promoting corporate responsibility and accountability in relation to human rights. Nigeria was confident that his work had so far achieved wide-ranging consensus regarding the law as it existed today and the need to pursue a multi-prolonged approach towards strengthening the international human rights regime in relation to business activities. Nigeria strongly supported the renewal of the mandate.
BART OUVRY (Belgium) said that Belgium aligned itself with the statement made by Slovenia on behalf of the European Union. The Special Representative to the Secretary-General had been able to create a basis for years to come. He demonstrated what progress had been made and the complexities between the transnational corporations and human rights. The role of States responsibility still remained to promote and protect human rights and had not been that of private societies, which must act to ensure that human rights were protected. One example was that of the Democratic Republic of Congo in conformity with the Human Rights Council in a previous session. Further Belgium hoped the Council accepted to take a more concrete analysis of this issue.
MALIK OZDEN, of Europe Third World Centre, said the perpetration of human rights violations by corporations was of great interest and that the situation was worsening. The need for a framework to deal with transnational corporations and human rights had been a long time coming. The Human Rights Council must move on from the present study level to more practical work. It was important to strengthen procedures of complaints. The High Commissioner for Human Rights had called on States to implement universal standards for human rights to be respected by transnational corporations. It was important for the Human Rights Council to establish a Working Group on the issue.
CARLOS LOPEZ, of International Commission of Jurists, speaking on behalf of several NGOs1, agreed that the international community was still in the early stages of adapting a human rights regime protecting violations by business enterprises. It was important that the topic remained on the United Nations agenda. The Council was urged to establish a follow-up mandate on business and human rights and to broaden the focus of a follow-up on the mandate. Greater visibility had to be given to those affected by human rights violations.
LAZARO PARY, of Indian Movement “Tupaj Amaru”, on behalf of World Peace Council, said that transnational corporations dominated the world. It was not necessary to renew a mandate on transnational corporations, as there was no international jurisdiction to punish the responsible actors for the numerous crimes they had committed. Transnational corporations were responsible for the pollution of the environment, external debt, and the social and historic debt owed to indigenous people. They acted without morals or ethics and only in lands of indigenous people where they continued to exploit them.
ELISABETH SROHSCHEIDT, of Bischofliches Hilfswerk Misereor, in a joint statement with Pax Romana and International Cooperation for Development and Solidarity, welcomed the extension of the mandate of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General. An in-depth analysis of cases would have the desired outcome of protecting human rights. It encouraged the Special Representative of the Secretary-General to have further discussions with southern countries that had not had the opportunity to participate in consultations. It was important for the mandate to have maximum impact for those it was intended to help. The research of the Special Representative had to be grounded in local realities. The mandate holder should provide recommendations on the three principles his report identified and concrete recommendations for companies in order to ensure they respected all human rights. Measures to increase corporate accountability would also help prevent further abuses from occurring.
JOHN RUGGIE, Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprise, in final remarks said that he had only one regret: that he was only one person and that he had also a day job. There had been many proposals and recommendations but it was impossible to do everything. All areas outlined in the statements were all things that still needed to be done. But this was a very new topic and the work was just beginning, no option was foreclosed. Recommending normative guidelines was a development that the mandate was seeking. Corporate responsibility did not end responsibilities of States; it strengthened the whole system of human rights protection. The mandate holder could not do all of the other things delegations would like it to do. He was already analysing real cases of real people in real places. Doing more would open the back door of a complaint mechanism and this would be moving the mandate away from its initial focus. Further, he would be delighted to participate in Egypt’s proposed forum.
VEBJORN HEINES (Norway), in concluding remarks, thanked all States and the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for their comments. Many useful comments and suggestion had been made and would be considered. A number of open-ended meetings and opportunities for consultations were extended before submitting the draft resolution. For example the open-ended meeting that took place on 20 May of this year for all interest parties to interact with the mandate holder. There would be another open-end meeting scheduled for 6 June. Norway would continue to consult on the draft resolution both formally and informally with the aim of reaching consensus.
Review, Rationalization and Improvement of Mandate of Independent Expert on Human Rights and Extreme Poverty
JEAN-BAPTISTE MATTEI (France), in introducing the motion to extend the mandate of the Independent Expert on human rights and extreme poverty, said that extreme poverty was a challenge to human rights. Since its inception, the mandate had been reviewed three times. Each renewal brought new emphasis on measures to combat extreme poverty. Previous focuses had been making women more autonomous, among others. France paid homage to the work of Mr. Sengupta and Ms. Sepulveda. The Independent Expert had undertaken field missions in order to give shape to the reports. It was important progress in an attempt to define the problem. Extreme poverty was an attack on human rights dignity and human rights. Human rights must be effective and concrete rights inscribed in every day life. The realisation of the objective of combating extreme poverty should involve all affected. France asked that the mandate of Independent Expert be renewed in order to better understand a phenomenon that affected all countries in the world. It must define policies and practices to combat extreme poverty. France proposed a renewal of the mandate for three years. It would hold broad consultation to achieve consensus. France had confidence that all States supported the work of the Independent Expert.
MAGDEALENA SEPULVEDA, Independent Expert on the question of human rights and extreme poverty, said the need to approach extreme poverty from a human rights perspective was clear from the high level of support for the resolutions that had established and extended her mandate, the numerous other resolutions on the issue of extreme poverty and human rights that had been adopted by various United Nations bodies, and from the very positive and constructive reaction from a large number of delegates to the presentation of the last report. Last year, halfway towards the date set for the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals, the Secretary-General had underlined that despite some progress in some countries, 1 billion people were now living in extreme poverty. Even though there had been some progress in the reduction of poverty in some countries, that progress had not been uniform and in certain countries the number of people living in extreme poverty had actually increased. Moreover, as the President of the World Bank had recently warned, the current food crisis might generate a further 100 million poor. That alarming statistic demonstrated that now was the time to increase their efforts to prevent escalating levels of poverty.
For human beings, living in extreme poverty translated into a denial of access to a whole range of civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights, Ms. Sepulveda underscored. Moreover, to live in extreme poverty frequently meant being subjected to discrimination and stigmatisation, and to be at increased risk of being exposed to violence. It also meant less access to information and to education, which in turn prevented the poor from having access to the information and skills needed to break the cycle of poverty. The problems faced by the poor demonstrated the indivisibility of all human rights and the need to find multidimensional solutions. In the last 10 years, her predecessors had achieved a number of important results, including advancing significantly the conceptual framework and understanding the links between human rights and extreme poverty. Furthermore, mandate holders had visited 11 countries and held numerous consultations with persons living in extreme poverty in that context. They had also examined the impact of various public policies on those living in extreme poverty, such as decentralization and microcredit schemes. Now was the time to capitalize on those achievements. They had to focus on the following areas: women and children, who were overrepresented among the extremely poor, and suffered disproportionately; the full involvement of people living in extreme poverty in the design and implementation of policies affecting them; international assistance and cooperation; and the need to build on the understanding about the interrelationship between human rights and extreme poverty.
ZIVA NENDL (Slovenia), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that the European Union supported the renewal of the mandate of the Independent Expert on human rights and extreme poverty. Extreme poverty was a violation of human dignity. The European Union thanked the work of the former Independent Expert, Arjun Sengupta and the nomination of Magadelena Sepulveda was also welcomed; under her mandate she would be able to redefine policies. The first objective must be addressed to extreme poverty and the challenge it created for the protection and promotion of human rights.
SYED ALI ASAD GILLANI (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, said that the Organization of the Islamic Conference attached great importance to the mandate of the Independent Expert on extreme poverty. It found the focus on obstacles before women in extreme poverty very important and appreciated the work done already on the issue. The Organization of the Islamic Conference believed that in order to address the issue, they must address root causes. Just identifying the symptoms without identifying the causes would not help. There was a need for financing to support the poorest. The Organization of the Islamic Conference supported the continuation of the mandate.
MOHAMMED LAMINE THIAW (Senegal) congratulated the noteworthy efforts of the Independent Expert. It drew the international community’s attention to the situation of extreme poverty. In the light of the long-term effects of the food crisis, there was a need to find lasting solutions to the food crisis. The right to food was a fundamental right. The mandate was fully supported.
ALI ONANER (Turkey) supported the mandate and its renewal. Turkey encouraged the new Independent Expert to continue her efforts to combat extreme poverty. Extreme poverty persisted all over the world and would continue to increase. The food crisis was increasing this risk, and it was unfortunate that woman and children made up the majority of people living in extreme poverty. The efforts to eradicate extreme poverty must have a human rights dimension. Integrating extreme poverty in the human rights system was essential for its eradication. Further, there needed to be focus on achieving the Millennium Development Goal on halving extreme poverty.
LARBI DJACTA (Algeria) thanked the Independent Expert. Algeria would work constructively to achieve consensus. Algeria supported strongly the extension of the mandate. The Independent Expert’s approach confirmed the situation already realized that people living in extreme poverty deserved support in order to move beyond its grip.
GIANFRANCO FATTORINI, of Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples, said that when this mandate was established, it already contained an error. Poor people were still remaining poor nowadays. The current mandate’s approach did not include any provisions to deal with the problem. It was believed that the title had to be changed to “Independent Expert on the consequences of poverty”. The mandate should further study the effects of State policies on the enjoyment of human rights.
GOTZON ONANDIA-ZARRABE, of Franciscans International, speaking also on behalf of International Movement ATD Fourth World, said that the promotion and protection of the rights of people living in extreme poverty should remain a top priority of the Human Rights Council, and thus hoped the Council would renew the mandate by consensus. They encouraged the Council to pursue its work towards the finalization of the draft of Guiding Principles, on which the Council had requested further consultation, and to make them an effective tool contributing to the realization of all human rights for people living in extreme poverty. They called on the Council to ensure that States continued to assist and cooperate fully with the Independent Expert to allow her to advance to fulfil her mandate.
MAGDEALENA SEPULVEDA, Independent Expert on the question of human rights and extreme poverty, said considering the impact of extreme poverty in all countries, it was crucial that the work of the Independent Expert continued. This mandate should focus on woman and children, who were over represented in extreme poverty. The mandate must play an important role in promoting the full involvement of people in extreme poverty in defining policies. It must encourage a grass roots movement and the engagement of all relevant stakeholders. It must also address issues of international assistance and cooperation. It was important for all involved in the issue to disseminate what was known and to build on the understanding of the link between extreme poverty and human rights. A broader number of States and civil society must be involved. The mandate could play a key role in coordinating other bodies working to eliminate extreme poverty. Increased awareness when decisions were made internationally, like bilateral and multilateral agreements, was essential and concrete measures had to be taken to reduce discriminatory laws.
JEAN-BAPTISTE MATTEI (France), in brief concluding comments, thanked Ms. Sepulveda, the Independent Expert on the question of human rights and extreme poverty, as well as the delegations and non-governmental organizations who had spoken, and who had expressed their extensive support for this mandate. It was hoped that the mandate would be renewed by consensus.
1Joint statement on behalf of: International Commission of Jurists; ActionAid International; Amnesty International; Human Rights Watch; and International Federation of Human Rights Leagues.
For use of the information media; not an official record
HRC08060E