HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL HEARS FROM 13 DIGNITARIES UNDER HIGH-LEVEL SEGMENT

The Human Rights Council continued with its high-level segment this morning, hearing addresses by 13 dignitaries from Luxembourg, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Ireland, Burkina Faso, Uzbekistan, Austria, the Netherlands, Slovakia, Sweden, Japan, the Czech Republic and Romania, who outlined a number of human rights issues that required continued attention from the Council, such as racism, poverty aggravated by the financial and economic crises, continued violations of the rights of women and girls, including female genital mutilation, human rights education and training, and the interplay between freedom of expression and new media and new technology.

Jean Asselborn, Vice Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs of Luxemburg, said the accomplishments of the Council included the Universal Periodic Review and the adoption of the Convention for the Protection of all People from Forced Disappearances. The Special Procedures were a key tool of the Council, and should continue to provide independent expertise both on thematic issues and geographical situations in order to convince the relevant authorities to implement their recommendations.

Urmas Paet, Minster for Foreign Affairs of Estonia, said that Estonia had for the first time set an objective to become a member of the Human Rights Council in 2012-2015 and a member of the Commission on the Status of Women in 2011. Estonia looked forward to the upcoming review of the Council and encouraged all Member States to actively participate in the process of building an even stronger, more credible and more efficient Council.

Kanat Saudabayev, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of Kazakhstan, said that since its inception, the Council had established itself as an effective human rights mechanism and Kazakhstan had decided to apply for Council membership in 2012-2015. Due to the negative effects of the global financial crisis, the role of governments in the social protection of citizens’ rights and freedoms was becoming increasingly important, especially in developing countries.

Micheal Martin, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ireland, said that it was in the interests of all to create a positive and constructive environment in the Council, and to learn from each other, as befitted a real partnership. The Council should be able to confront the reality of human rights abuses, and to highlight situations in which international human rights standards were being neglected or violated. When embarking on the review of the Council, it should be borne in mind that the ultimate goal must be the enhanced protection of human rights on the ground.

Salamata Sawadogo, Minister for the Promotion of Human Rights of Burkina Faso, said that the Council was now in the operational phase and they were seeing formidable results. It was time to activate a special fund for the Universal Periodic Review to assist countries to implement recommendations they had received. Burkina Faso proposed that the Council focused on female genital mutilation which Burkina Faso saw as a true attack on the dignity and physical integrity of women and girls.

Akmal Saidov, Chairman of the National Centre for Human Rights of Uzbekistan, said that 2009 had been marked with significant events in the field of human rights. The United Nations declared 2009 as the International Year of Human Rights Learning. Uzbekistan supported the Council’s efforts to realize the second stage of the World Programme of Human Rights Education and the adoption of the declaration on education.

Claudia Bandion-Ortner, Federal Minister of Justice of Austria, said Austria had decided to present its candidature for membership in the United Nations Human Rights Council for the term 2011-2014. Any strategy to strengthen the rule of law and to protect civilians had to include combating impunity for serious human rights violations of the past. The biggest challenge today remained the implementation gap between international human rights standards and the reality of their implementation on the ground.

Maxime Verhagen, Minster for Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands, said thanks to the Internet, local and global had become two sides of the same coin. Freedom of expression had gained a new, digital dimension. At times procedural issues had distracted the Council from dealing with the real issues at stake. There should be no taboos at the Human Rights Council, not as far as countries or specific rights were concerned. The Council would lose its credibility if it was seen to be dealing with country situations in a one-sided and selective manner.

Diana Strofova, State Secretary for Foreign Affairs of Slovakia, said the Universal Periodic Review provided an opportunity for reviewed countries to self-reflect. Slovakia valued and supported the proactive engagement of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights throughout the world and deemed the role of the Special Procedures in addressing country-specific and thematic issues worldwide indispensable. Disturbing attempts to interfere with the autonomy of Special Procedures in monitoring human rights must be halted.

Frank Belfrage, State Secretary for Foreign Affairs of Sweden, said that the international community needed access to technology to be a catalyst for human rights - and to prevent access to technology from becoming a new human rights barrier. New technologies had assisted in bringing the world's attention to situations in countries which before were hard to access. Acting in the spirit of freedom of expression also meant to acknowledge and pay attention to the role of civil society, in particular human rights defenders. It was important that the human rights community addressed the issue of violations of freedom of expression and new technologies with greater vigour than in the past.

Chinami Nishimura, Parliamentary Vice Minster for Foreign Affairs of Japan, said that Japan would spare no effort to enable the Council to fulfil its role. Japan considered the Universal Periodic Review a useful means for each country to retrace its domestic human rights situation and to gain suggestions for improvement. It was important to take into consideration the specific circumstances of the individual country or region when improving the human rights situation. Japan intended to continue to actively engage in and contribute to the Human Rights Council and had decided to stand as a candidate in the 2012 election for the Human Rights Council.

Vladimir Galuska, Minster of Foreign Affairs for European Affairs of the Czech Republic, said that there were still member countries that refused to cooperate with the Council’s independent mechanisms, countries where people were dying in prison, countries where torture was widespread and where children were being executed. The ability of the Council to address serious violations anywhere was another key issue. That was not just a naming and shaming exercise. In order to contribute genuinely to protecting human rights, States had to have the courage to say where things could be done better.

Bogdan Aurescu, State Secretary for Strategic Affairs of Romania, said the Human Rights Council had proven its worth, but it could not stop there, since reality showed that people in various countries of the world still suffered from grave violations of their rights. The Council had reached a point where the stocktaking exercise of its achievements had a meaningful scope. It was looking for those adjustments that could ensure more efficiency and effectiveness to the Council.

The next meeting of the Council will be at 3 p.m., when it will conclude its high-level segment and start the general segment.

High-Level Segment

JEAN ASSELBORN, Vice Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs of Luxembourg, said five years after the creation of the Council, the international community was called on to examine its activities and functioning, and this should take place seriously, transparently, and inclusively. One of the accomplishments of the Council was the Universal Periodic Review, and another was the adoption of the International Convention for the Protection of all People from Forced Disappearances. Nevertheless, the Council was facing difficulties and criticisms but these would strengthen it and enable it to fulfil its mandate and better ensure follow-up of the situation of human rights in the world. It was through showing creativity and innovation that the Council could adopt new solutions which would allow it to better play the role of universal human rights conscience, and to reinforce further its credibility. In this exercise, it should have as a single goal the reinforcement of the effective protection of human rights in the field. Human rights should not be relative or regional in the name of cultures or supposedly traditional values.

The Special Procedures were a key tool of the Council, and should continue to provide independent expertise, both on thematic issues and geographical situations in order to convince the relevant authorities to implement their recommendations. The mandate-holders' reports held many appeals addressed to the Council to remind it to re-examine and improve the situation in the field. The right to food, in particular, was violated more often than ever. The number of those suffering from hunger and malnutrition had passed one billion, whereas the Millennium Development Goal foresaw a reduction by half by 2015. Hunger and malnutrition, and their revolting banality, remained the first cause of death on the planet. In this context, the Council should pay more attention to the justiciability of economic, social and cultural rights. The fight for human rights was also a fight against discrimination; a fight for the full and entire implementation for all of all rights.

URMAS PAET, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Estonia, said that despite the general recognition of universal human rights principles, the rights that appeared so natural and self-evident for many of us today had not yet reached universal implementation. Estonia appreciated the role of the United Nations in assisting the global implementation of the universal and comprehensive principles of human rights and had for the first time set an objective to become a member of the Human Rights Council in 2012-2015 and a member of the Commission on the Status of Women in 2011. Estonia looked forward to the upcoming review of the Council and encouraged all Member States to actively participate in the process of building an even stronger, more credible and more efficient Council.

Estonia was paying special attention to the rights of women, the rights of the child and freedom of expression. The promotion of women’s rights was a priority in humanitarian and development cooperation efforts. Focusing on the quality of the health care and ensuring access to it for women and girls contributed significantly to maternal and newborn health and it was a part of Estonia’s contribution to achieving equality and maternal health-related Millennium Development Goals. Estonia recognised the importance of a comprehensive and coherent national approach regarding the protection of children from all forms of violence and abuse. One of its top priorities was to prevent the Internet-related crimes that might be harmful to children. Estonia had the experience on the importance of the free flow of information for the development of an open society and that was why Estonia strongly supported efforts to secure freedom of expression, particularly for the electronic media.

KANAT SAUDABAYEV, Secretary of State and Minister for Foreign Affairs of Kazakhstan, welcomed High Commissioner Navi Pillay and reaffirmed his full support for her work, expressing his confidence that she would bring leadership to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in order to protect and promote human rights around the world. Since its inception, the Council had established itself as an effective human rights mechanism. Its close cooperation with the Council and the High Commissioner were an integral part of its efforts to protect human rights and freedom. Kazakhstan was still moving towards broader democracy, rule of law and the protection of rights and freedoms. Its top priority was legal reform that would be designed to reorganize the law enforcement system in line with high international standards. Further reforms of the judicial system would be emphasised. The promotion of gender equality was one of the Government’s most important areas of activity. The protection of minors’ rights has always been at the top of the Government’s agenda. Measures were being taken, under the Plan of Action to Eradicate Torture up to 2013. Kazakhstan had also adopted a special law on refugees, which defined their legal status in accordance with the norms of international law based on non-discrimination and transparency. The Government had also been carrying out an action plan to combat human trafficking for 2009-2011.

Preparations were under way for the ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which in turn would bolster the social and economic protection of persons with disabilities. Due to the negative effects of the global financial crisis, the role of governments in the social protection of citizens’ rights and freedoms was becoming increasingly important, especially in developing countries. Last month Kazakhstan successfully passed through its first Universal Periodic Review in the Human Rights Council. That process had allowed it to take stock of what had been done and what remained to be done to further citizens’ human rights protection. Kazakhstan intended to enhance further its efforts to implement recommendations made during the Universal Periodic Review by Member States, treaty bodies and Special Procedures, fully. It remained open to cooperating with the international community to protect and promote human rights and freedoms. It would continue to support the activities of the Human Rights Council and had decided to apply for Council membership for 2012-2015. Kazakhstan had always been firmly committed to consistent efforts to bolster the protection of human rights and freedoms. To achieve those goals, it intended to work closely with the Human Rights Council.

MICHEAL MARTIN, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ireland, said it was the inherent dignity and equal and inalienable rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which the Council sought to protect and promote. The common values enshrined within universal human rights transcended differences of nationality, race, religion, wealth or power, and were the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world. When people's rights were respected, when their voices were heard and when their freedoms were protected, then they were empowered. When Ireland addressed the inaugural session of the Council in June 2006, it set out its hopes for the newly-established Human Rights Council, hoping for a Council which would be marked by a decisive shift to more effective implementation of human rights norms and standards; a Council which would be relevant and confront the very real and practical problems the world faced in ensuring genuine respect for human rights, and a Council which would also be able to point out when international human rights standards were being neglected or wilfully violated. Almost four years later, Ireland's hopes for the Council remained the same, but it was not sure that the international community had fully availed itself of the opportunities to realise these aspirations.

The Council was the primary international forum to advance the protection and promotion of human rights. It was in the interests of all to create a positive and constructive environment in the Council, and to learn from each other, as befitted a real partnership. The Council should be able to confront the reality of human rights abuses, and to highlight situations in which international human rights standards were being neglected or violated. The Council was doing a grave disservice to the victims of such violations and those who struggled to end them if it remained silent, or did not respond adequately, in the face of the many human rights abuses that persisted in the world today. The credibility of the international community was at stake in Gaza - it should step up pressure for a lifting of the blockade and the opening of the border crossings to normal commercial and humanitarian traffic. The Council had a responsibility to address serious and pressing human rights situations. Ireland was committed to a strong and effective Human Rights Council, which had the scope to strengthen the cause of human rights around the world. When embarking on the Review of the Council, it should be borne in mind that the ultimate goal must be the enhanced protection of human rights on the ground.

SALAMATA SAWADOGO, Minister for the Promotion of Human Rights of Burkina Faso, said that the Human Rights Council was now in the operational phase and they were seeing formidable results. Burkina Faso considered the various meetings of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review to be reassuring because the mission of the Council was to improve the human rights situation in situ and for this to take place it was important for the Council to show commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights. It was time to activate a special fund for the Universal Periodic Review to assist countries to implement recommendations they had received.

Human rights education and training continued to be the objective to which they all strove and that was why Burkina Faso reaffirmed its support for the draft declaration on human rights education and training. Racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related forms of intolerance were still a source of major concern for the international community and Burkina Faso invited Member States to implement the Durban Declaration and the final document of the Durban Review Conference. Existence of numerous international instruments had not put an end to violations of the rights of women. Burkina Faso proposed that the Council should focus on female genital mutilation which Burkina Faso saw as a true attack at the dignity and physical integrity of women and girls. Burkina Faso would be proposing a discussion by the Council on female genital mutilation and invited countries to forge a strong international engagement against this scourge.

AKMAL SAIDOV, Director of the National Human Rights Centre of Uzbekistan, said that 2009 had been marked with significant events in the field of human rights. The United Nations had declared 2009 as the International Year of Human Rights Learning. Uzbekistan hoped the universal document that defined the important areas of educational activities in the context of supporting, promoting and protecting human rights would be elaborated. In the framework of the United Nations World Campaign, different sectors within the country had undertaken complex actions aimed at implementing informational-educational measures on human rights. In terms of policies on the protection of human rights, freedoms and legal interest, Uzbekistan had focused on promoting the implementation of adopted legislative acts on human rights, freedoms and legal interests; permanently monitoring the protection of human rights; adopting and realizing effective measures to provide citizens with social-economic rights; promoting employment and developing various forms of entrepreneurship; and preparing and realizing measures to assist the active participation of NGOs, civil society and mass media in public and political life.

The functioning of Uzbekistan’s human rights institutions met the requirements of the Paris principles. In terms of implementing basic provisions of international human rights treaties, Uzbekistan has defined five priority areas: the promotion of civil and political rights; the promotion of economic, social and cultural human rights; deepening judicial and legal reforms; improving the institutional base for protecting human rights; and the information and educational aspects. Uzbekistan fully supported the United Nations efforts in human rights by encouraging international cooperation based on the principles of non-selectivity, impartiality and objectivity. It also supported the Council’s efforts to realize the second stage of the World Programme of Human Rights Education and the adoption of the Declaration on Education.

CLAUDIA BANDION-ORTNER, Federal Minister of Justice of Austria, said the protection and promotion of human rights was a major priority for Austria, with a strong commitment to protect human rights at the national level and to work with others at the international level. Austria was convinced that an effective and credible Human Rights Council had to play a central role in the world-wide protection of victims of human rights violations. Austria was ready to contribute, and had therefore decided to present its candidature for membership in the United Nations Human Rights Council for the term 2011-2014. Concerning the work of the Council, Austria would continue to be guided by a spirit of cooperation and dialogue, and was strongly committed to the implementation of the Council's mandate to address situations of violations of human rights, including gross and systematic violations. Peace-keeping, peace-building, respect for human rights as well as sustainable development could only be accomplished if everybody respected the law and if rule of law institutions were accountable to the people.

Any strategy to strengthen the rule of law and to protect civilians had to include combating impunity for serious human rights violations of the past. Accountability had to happen first and foremost through effective mechanisms at the national level. In this regard, Austria supported transitional justice efforts, as important contributions to seek sustainable peace, justice and reconciliation. Enhancing cooperation among different actors to ensure effective and sustainable rule of law assistance was a priority for Austria. Austria supported national reform of the justice sector and international judicial cooperation. The effective protection of human rights depended on knowledge and awareness of these rights among all sectors of society. The biggest challenge today remained the implementation gap between international human rights standards and the reality of their implementation on the ground. Standards alone were not enough if the international community failed to invest in their implementation. The Council had an obligation in law and indeed towards all victims of human rights violations.

MAXIME VERHAGEN, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands, said that violence against women and girls was a world-wide wrong that affected women everywhere. It made them feel degraded, ashamed and even invisible. People all over the world were more connected than they might think. They might seem isolated in their struggle but they were not. Technology was developing in their favour. The World Wide Web provided countless ways to access information and to connect like-minded people all over the world. That was how the “We Can” campaign aimed at ending the violence against women managed to spread from Bangladesh to other countries, including the Netherlands. Thanks to the Internet, local and global had become two sides of the same coin. Freedom of expression had gained a new, digital dimension. There was no way this development could be stopped, not by censorship and not by oppression. The Netherlands would host a conference on Human Rights and New Media in April and would bring together human rights defenders from all over the world to discuss how they could get out their message using new media, but also to make them aware of the risks.

Just as there was more that connected the world’s people, there was more that connected the world’s leaders. Human rights were what bound us together in this world. For this Council to become a champion, they would have to make more of a team effort. At times procedural issues had distracted them from dealing with the real issues at stake. There should be no taboos at the Human Rights Council, not as far as countries or specific rights were concerned. The Council would lose its credibility if it was seen to be dealing with country situations in a one-sided and selective manner. The Council had let down thousands of internally displaced persons in Sri Lanka last May by adopting a self-congratulatory declaration that had done little to relieve their plight. The Netherlands urged the Council to establish a new country mandate for the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where the human rights situation absolutely merited a mandate. The Council’s agenda did not yet reflect all the substantive issues that needed to be addressed. Discrimination on the basis of descent or work and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation were missing. One area where the Council had made tremendous progress was the Universal Periodic Review, whereby countries had shown themselves willing to be scrutinised and questioned by their peers and had pledged to take the recommendations to heart. Another positive development had been a sharpened focus on economic, social and cultural rights. Acknowledging that the world shared common principles of justice and progress, tolerance and the dignity for all human beings would ensure that this Council progressed in the right direction.

DIANA STROFOVA, State Secretary for Foreign Affairs of Slovakia, said she was honoured to address the forum, before her country started the last year of its membership to the Council. Slovakia was sure that a spirit of dialogue and cooperation would prevail in the upcoming review process through which they had to adhere to the commitment to bear the responsibility and to improve the ability of the Council to react effectively and promptly to situations that fell under its mandate. To achieve the ideal of human dignity in the work of the Council, human rights achievements had to be underestimated and problems overestimated, so as never to lose sight of those in need. Slovakia had pledged to play a constructive role in developing human rights worldwide. Many of its pledges and commitments had been fulfilled or would be shortly. Slovakia had been one of the first countries to sign the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in September 2009. The Council offered it ample tools to stay vigilant and humble. The Universal Periodic Review provided an opportunity for reviewed countries to self-reflect. Slovakia had taken its review very seriously.

Slovakia valued and supported the proactive engagement of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights throughout the world. It deemed the role of the Special Procedures in addressing country-specific and thematic issues worldwide indispensable, calling on the Office to provide these mechanisms with support. Although Slovakia disagreed with some of the Special Procedures’ findings and recommendations, disturbing attempts to interfere with the autonomy of Special Procedures in monitoring human rights must be halted. It welcomed the recent appointment of the new representative on violence against children. Despite overall progress in the institutional basis, practical implementation of the rights of the child lagged behind goals enshrined in the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Once again, achievements had been overrated and problems had been underestimated. The Human Rights Council should continue addressing the rights of the child regularly. Slovakia, with other countries, had supported the initiative for a new Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Some issues relevant to the new Optional Protocol would require further discussion. That should be the role of the Working Group drafting the Optional Protocol. Slovakia encouraged all members to support the resolution submitted at this Council’s session by a cross regional group of States, with the aim of starting to elaborate the new Optional Protocol.

FRANK BELFRAGE, State Secretary for Foreign Affairs of Sweden, said freedom of opinion and expression had been an integral feature in the evolution from ancient times to the democratic and participatory societies of today. The universality of freedom of opinion and expression could not be disputed. Freedom of expression lay at the heart of every person's right not to be oppressed. It was the lynchpin for freedom in its truest form. There was no other human right which better symbolised the interdependence of the different human rights. Without freedom of expression, many other human rights would never have been formulated, let alone realised. The right to education, the right to cultural expression, the right to form trade unions and many other human rights depended on the right to opinion and expression. These freedoms were essential to development. Freedom of opinion and expression was the platform for the entire Bill of Rights. Governments belonged to the people, and people had a legitimate right to express their opinions about their Governments’ performance and also to hold their Governments accountable - and a free media was crucial to that accountability.

New technologies could assist in making Governments more transparent and could stimulate citizens to take a more active part in the democratic governance of their country. The international community needed access to technology to be a catalyst for human rights and to prevent access to technology from becoming a new human rights barrier. New technologies had assisted in bringing the world's attention to situations in countries which before were hard to access. As had been established on several occasions by human rights expert bodies of the United Nations, freedom of opinion and expression was fully applicable on the Internet, and could only be subject to limitations in accordance with international human rights law. Human rights applied on-line as well as off-line. Acting in the spirit of freedom of expression also meant to acknowledge and pay attention to the role of civil society, in particular human rights defenders. The Council could not stand by while people were sentenced to death, tortured or subjected to arbitrary detention because they had exercised their most basic rights. It was important that the human rights community addressed the issue of violations of freedom of expression and new technologies with greater vigour than in the past.

CHINAMI NISHIMURA, Parliamentary Vice Minster for Foreign Affairs of Japan, said that Japan would spare no effort to enable the Council to fulfil its role. The foremost objective of the review of the Council was to strengthen its functions so that it would be able to conduct activities that contributed to the actual improvement of human rights situations and so that it could tackle serious violations of human rights effectively and expeditiously. Japan considered the Universal Periodic Review a useful means for each country to retrace its domestic human rights situation and to gain suggestions for improvement. Japan believed it was important to take into consideration the specific circumstances of the individual country or region when improving the human rights situation. Japan welcomed the increasing awareness of human rights issues in the Asia region.

Human rights violations had not disappeared regardless of the efforts of the international community as a whole, such as systematic and widespread violation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Japan would hold a symposium in Tokyo in March to discuss and promote respect and protection of the rights of the child. Japan actively dealt with the issue of leprosy. Although it was a curable disease today, persons affected by leprosy and their families were still subject to serious human rights violations in various parts of the world due to discrimination and prejudice. There was no final destination in the promotion and protection of human rights and Japan intended to continue to actively engage in and contribute to the Human Rights Council and had decided to stand as a candidate in the 2012 election for the Human Rights Council.

VLADIMIR GALUSKA, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic, said the Czech Republic saw the Human Right Council’s review next year as an opportunity to improve further its performance and impact on promoting and protecting human rights. Members did not seem to be sufficiently strict in terms of what they required of their members or candidates for a Council seat. There were still member countries that refused to cooperate with the Council’s mechanisms, countries where people were dying in prison, countries where torture was widespread and where children were being executed. Such countries could not count on the Czech Republic’s support during the elections. It was the responsibility of all members to consider carefully, in every election, the quality of human rights records of all candidates. The ability of the Council to address serious violations anywhere was another key issue. That was not just a naming and shaming exercise. In order to contribute genuinely to protecting human rights, States had to have the courage to say where things could be done better.

The Czech Republic had never denied that the situation of the Roma minority needed improvement and attention. The situation of Roma children, with emphasis on their effective access to education, was a priority. At the national level a number of changes had been made to improve their access to education. The Government did not always agree with criticisms on the Roma issue. However, it did not try to curtail the independent status of Special Rapporteurs, non-governmental organizations and the High Commissioner because it valued open debate and critical debate on human rights issues highly. The complimentary standards in the fight against racism were another important topic that was being vividly debated in the Human Rights Council. On the fight against racism, including religious intolerance the real challenge was to achieve full and universal implementation of international standards already available. The Czech Republic regretted that debates on racism were becoming increasingly polarized and ideological. It welcomed new initiatives to take a rational and practical approach on that. It also greatly appreciated the accent on prevention and education measures.

BOGDAN AURESCU, State Secretary for Strategic Affairs of Romania, said in an already complex international context, the year 2009 had represented the peak of a severe economic and financial global crisis, with unavoidable implications at the level of ordinary people throughout the world, especially the most vulnerable segments of global societies. The effective enjoyment of human rights challenged the international community from a new perspective. As a response, the whole United Nations system had mobilised much of its resources to address, in an integrated manner, the needs of the most vulnerable groups - children, women, the elderly, the disabled, the unemployed and the marginalised - to help them overcome multiple crises. The objective had been followed with through consideration along its three dimensions: security, development and human rights. The Human Rights Council had offered the most appropriate platform to deal with the human rights-related impact of the financial and economic crisis. Moreover, the Council addressed a variety of issues of concern over the last period, from country situations to other thematic issues. It had also continued efforts to create universal norms and increase its transparency. Thus, it could be said that it had proven its worth, but it could not stop there, since reality showed that people in various countries of the world still suffered from grave violations of their rights.

The Council had reached a point where the stocktaking exercise of its achievements had a meaningful scope. It was looking for those adjustments that could ensure more efficiency and effectiveness to the Council. The main innovation of the Council and one of its most efficient mechanisms, the Universal Periodic Review, had already brought about a series of positive effects: an internal process of reflection in the reviewed States, a more intense cooperation with civil society, and new doors for dialogue with a number of States for which this exercise in transparency was a new type of effort. As for the Special Procedures, Romania insisted on the importance of their independence as bodies that assessed the situation on the ground, the need to enhance the level of professional qualification of the mandate-holders, and, last but not least, the need to establish efficient channels of communication with the Member States and among themselves. Thematic debates should be organised within the Council's regular sessions, the agenda needed to be streamlined, the issues addressed throughout the year should be clustered, and the session-time of working groups should be rationalised. Moreover, in this modern world where the media had an unparalleled impact on the collective consciousness, it should be used as an honest and reliable partner in the Council's effort to set standards.


For use of the information media; not an official record

HRC10/012E