HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL HEARS STATEMENT FROM AUSTRIAN PRESIDENT AND CONCLUDES GENERAL DEBATE ON UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW
The Human Rights Council this morning heard an address by Heinz Fischer, the President of Austria, and concluded its general debate on the Universal Periodic Review.
Heinz Fischer, the President of Austria, said the history of civilization was also the history of human rights violations and the history of the fight for human rights. Considerable progress had been made over the past several decades and the task of all members of the Human Rights Council was to do justice to expectations of those people whose rights were violated or were in danger of being violated. Most countries in Europe accepted that the death penalty was the cruelest form of penalty and should be abolished, and this was something to be proud of. Mr. Fischer called on Belarus, the only country in Europe to still retain the death penalty, to abolish it and expressed regret about slow progress in the universal abolition of the death penalty. The news about daily atrocities in Syria was deeply shocking; there was no other solution to this conflict but peaceful negotiations and all parties must come to the negotiating table in Geneva.
In the general debate on the Universal Periodic Review, speakers noted the contribution of the Universal Periodic Review as a mechanism for the promotion and protection of human rights at the country level and its concrete and focused recommendations. It was important to ensure the universality of the mechanism and to respect the principles of objectivity, transparency, non-selectivity and equal treatment and all countries had to remain committed to the mechanism in order to preserve its universality. Concerns were expressed about a case of non-cooperation with the mechanism, which could undermine the mechanism and threaten the credibility of the Human Rights Council. It was hoped that there would be more efficient coordination in the Office of the High Commissioner. It was noted that there were too many interlocutors in the Secretariat. Only reliable information should be used in the compilation of information.
Speaking in the discussion were Ireland on behalf of the European Union, Cuba on behalf of a group of like-minded States, Ecuador on behalf of a group of States, Germany, United States, Maldives, Republic of Moldova, Estonia, Morocco on behalf of a group of States, Algeria, China, Cuba, Iran, Lebanon, Bulgaria, Slovenia, United Kingdom, Canada, Jamaica, Georgia, Armenia, Australia and Azerbaijan.
The following non-governmental organizations also took the floor: Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie, Universal Periodic Review Info, Roma Centre for Social Intervention and Studies, International Catholic Child Bureau, CIVICUS World Alliance for Citizen Participation, Maarij Foundation for Peace and Development, Human Rights Law Centre, International Organization for the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, and International Youth and Student Movement for the United Nations.
The Human Rights Council will continue its work during its midday meeting and hold an interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian Territories occupied since 1967, followed by a general debate on the human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories.
Statement by the President of Austria
HEINZ FISCHER, President of Austria, said that the history of civilization was also the history of human rights violations and the history of the fight for human rights. Considerable progress had been made over the past several decades with the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the adoption of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action in 1993. The task of all members of the Human Rights Council was to do justice to expectations of those people whose rights were violated or were in danger of being violated. Most countries in Europe accepted that the death penalty was the cruelest form of penalty and should be abolished, and this was something to be proud of. Mr. Fischer called on Belarus, the only country in Europe to still retain the death penalty, to abolish it and expressed regret about the slow progress in the universal abolition of the death penalty. Human rights were universal and the world must keep its eyes open to the many violations that still existed, said Mr. Fischer, adding that the enjoyment of civil and political rights had to go hand in hand with the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights; they were complementary and enforced each other. The news about daily atrocities in Syria was deeply shocking; there was no other solution to this conflict but peaceful negotiations and all parties must come to the negotiating table in Geneva.
Turning to the situation in Austria, Mr. Fischer said that a comprehensive network of institutions defending human rights was in place in Austria. The Ombudsmen had the mandate to check the situation of human rights preventively, thus fulfilling the obligations under the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The Parliament, Government and the media had a high degree of awareness and reacted sharply to any human rights violations. In September 2011, Austria had become a member of the Human Rights Council for the first time; protection of journalists and combating impunity for those crimes was high on its agenda and Austria was actively promoting better cooperation and finding solutions to this issue. In cooperation with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Austria would organize an international expert conference “Vienna +20: advancing the protection of human rights”, which would take place on 27 and 28 June 2013 and would focus on advancing the rule of law, the post-2015 development agenda and the participation of women in public and political life.
Documentation
The Council has before it a note by the Secretary-General on the report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the operations of the Voluntary Fund for financial and technical assistance in the implementation of the Universal Periodic Review (A/HRC/23/60).
The Council has before it the report of the High Commissioner on the operations of the Voluntary Fund on participation in the Universal Periodic Review (A/HRC/23/61).
General Debate on the Universal Periodic Review
Ireland, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that the Universal Periodic Review had contributed to the protection and promotion of human rights at the country level. The European Union welcomed the concrete and focused recommendations made and underlined the importance of technical assistance. It stressed that according to existing rules, all recommendations made during the interactive dialogue should be included in the report of the Working Group.
Cuba, speaking on behalf of a group of like-minded States, said that new arrangements had been put in place that were more cumbersome for States. In the first cycle of the Universal Periodic Review, there was a single interlocutor in the Secretariat. In the second cycle States they now had to deal with numerous interlocutors. There was also concern about the publication on the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights website of so-called meeting highlights.
Ecuador, speaking on behalf of a group of countries, acknowledged the efforts made by States under review. The countries felt that the exchange of experience was important in the exercise. The United Nations Information Compilation Document should be made up of reports of treaty bodies and Special Procedures and other official documents. However there was no clear-cut definition of official documents and so the countries wished to know which documents were to be considered as such.
Germany said that it was considering its response to the recommendations received during its Universal Periodic Review. In certain instances during the second Universal Periodic Review Germany noticed that the report of the Working Group did not accurately reflect the content of the interactive dialogue, which was against the rules. Therefore, Germany urged the troikas to ensure that similar discrepancies did not take place in the future.
United States said that Universal Periodic Review reports should not be regarded as negotiated documents but they should be strictly factual records of the components of the Universal Periodic Review and should contain all recommendations made to the State under review. However, there were several instances which deviated from that rule, with several States seeking modifications to the substance of the report after the interactive dialogue had been concluded.
Maldives attached high importance to the implementation of accepted Universal Periodic Review recommendations and reported on the progress it was making in implementation of its own recommendations. Work was underway to sign the Convention on the Protection of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, steps were being taken to protect the rights of the child, a sexual harassment bill and a gender equality bill were currently being drafted, and an anti-trafficking bill was expected to pass soon.
Republic of Moldova said that the Universal Periodic Review catalyzed the national processes towards improving the promotion and protection of human rights and there was a need to find a balance in recommendations issued to States. The same principles had to apply to all States to ensure the lasting effects of this process. Greater use of information and communication technology in the process should be ensured, together with increased access for persons with disabilities.
Estonia reiterated that the recommendation made belonged to a State making it and should be reported fully. At the same time, States under review had the sovereign right to decide what to do with the recommendation. Regrettably, this practice had not been universally followed during the last session and Estonia was concerned that this might become a regrettable precedent.
Morocco, speaking on behalf of a group of States, said that the United Kingdom and Morocco had hosted in May 2013 an event to share best practices and discuss challenges in the Universal Periodic Review process. The meeting emphasized that the Universal Periodic Review process should be seen as a national process and not a one off event held in Geneva. The meeting had identified several good practices and a number of challenges including the issue of non-cooperation with the process, the need to combat reprisals against those engaging with the process, and the need to avoid politicization.
Algeria said that unfortunately, the beginning of the second cycle witnessed a case of non-cooperation during the fifteenth session of the Universal Periodic Review Working Group. In this context, Algeria stressed the necessity to fully respect the principles of objectivity, transparency, non-selectivity and equal treatment. Algeria reiterated the need for everyone to undergo this exercise pursuant to the principle of equal treatment as well as to preserve the credibility of the Human Rights Council.
China said that it attached great importance to the Universal Periodic Review mechanism and its principles of objectivity, transparency, non-selectivity and equal treatment. China encouraged the Office of the High Commissioner to listen to views and suggestions from States and to keep improving its working methods, such as through a better internal coordination and the use of only reliable information in the compilation.
Cuba reiterated that it was critical to preserve the universality of the Universal Periodic Review and to consolidate the institutional capacity of the Office of the High Commissioner to support this important mechanism. Cuba found that it was much more efficient to deal with a single intermediary, as was done during the first cycle. The advice of the Secretariat should be as clear and consistent as in the past.
Iran said that the Universal Periodic Review was an important mechanism and all States had a responsibility to preserve its universality, objectivity, transparency, and non-selectivity. Iran was dismayed by Israel’s refusal to cooperate with the Universal Periodic Review mechanism, and said that the Council had an obligation to address the issue. The Universal Periodic Review of Israel should be conducted with or without Israel’s participation.
Lebanon said that it had accepted a number of recommendations during its first Universal Periodic Review and reported that it had since established an advisory procedure with participation from civil society. Lebanon was currently preparing for its second Universal Periodic Review. It was necessary for all countries to remain committed to the mechanism in order to preserve its universality. Lebanon was deeply concerned about Israel’s non-cooperation with the Council.
Bulgaria said that, following the successful completion of its Universal Periodic Review, all relevant civil society representatives and governmental authorities had been involved in the implementation of accepted recommendations. A mid-term update on the implementation of recommendations would be published soon. Bulgaria remained highly committed to the Universal Periodic Review mechanism and to the promotion and protection of human rights for all persons residing in its territory.
Slovenia was pleased that the Universal Periodic Review had developed into one of the most successful human rights mechanisms and stressed the importance of the involvement of civil society in the follow-up activities. It would be regrettable if the decision of one country regarding its general cooperation with the Human Rights Council were to undermine the achievements of the Universal Periodic Review as a truly universal and non-discriminatory human rights mechanism.
United Kingdom said that it was crucial that the Universal Periodic Review process maintained its universality and integrity. The essential element of this was the Working Group’s report which must accurately reflect the discussions in the group and all the recommendations made. The final report adopted by the Council should include both accepted and noted recommendations irrespective of the country making them and the issue raised and under no circumstances should States have the possibility to omit recommendations from the main part of the report for any reason.
Jamaica updated the Human Rights Council on the progress of implementation of the recommendations it had received during its Universal Periodic Review in November 2010, including ratification of several human rights instruments, submission of reports to treaty bodies and the adoption of a gender equality policy. Jamaica stressed the challenges caused by limited resources and underlined the importance of the support of the international community in the implementation of recommendations made.
Georgia reiterated its deep concern with respect to a case of derogation from the principles and working methods of the process in the second Universal Periodic Review cycle of Russia. Georgia stressed the importance of ensuring that the format of the Working Group remained the same and that everyone received equal treatment. Georgia was concerned by the negative consequences that would arise from non-respect of the principles underpinning the mechanism, which would cause damage to the mechanism.
Armenia said that during the last session the phenomenon of so-called deals were seen, when the State under review and the troika and the Secretariat were coming to an arrangement to violate all procedural norms and to include controversial footnotes containing purely political and territorial interpretations, never voiced in the process, in the report of the Working Group. The Universal Periodic Review and the Council were not places for such deals and there were rules and procedures which were obligatory for all.
Australia said that out of the 145 recommendations made during Australia’s first Review cycle, over 90 per cent of them were accepted. Australia’s National Human Rights Action Plan cited all of its accepted recommendations and detailed how these would be implemented. There had been a number of significant developments which demonstrated Australia’s commitment to the implementation of recommendations and its commitment to human rights, more broadly.
Azerbaijan said that it had participated constructively in its second Universal Periodic Review and that the recommendations received were currently being considered by the competent bodies in Azerbaijan. Recommendations should be objective and not reflect the political interests of recommending States. Any changes to the report adopted by the Council should only be made with the consent of the Council and in a plenary session. Behind-the-scenes maneuvering by States to modify their report undermined the Universal Periodic Review mechanism.
Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie said that it helped its Member States to implement their Universal Periodic Review recommendations. To that end, it had organized three French language seminars on the Universal Periodic Review mechanism, while a fourth seminar was underway. It had also set up a technical assistance programme to help its Members with the examination process, and had published a practical guide in French and English drawn up on the basis of experience derived from good practices.
Universal Periodic Review Info, in a joint statement, said that it was deeply concerned by attacks on the format of the Working Group report, and welcomed interventions made by several delegations this morning. It was regrettable that recommendations had recently been taken out of the main body of a State’s report and placed in footnotes, which might create a dangerous precedent.
Roma Centre for Social Intervention and Studies drew the attention of the Human Rights Council to the relocation of the vulnerable Roma next to waste collection sites and other unhealthy areas by the Government of Romania. The authorities responsible for relocation received insignificant administrative fines for discrimination which they often contested in court. Romanian courts often overturned the discrimination decisions in such cases, confirming the strong sense of legal impunity.
International Catholic Child Bureau, in a joint statement, said that the cooperative nature of the Universal Periodic Review and the constructive involvement of other States in the process should not be limited to the formulation of recommendations. States making those recommendations should assist, support and follow-up the implementation process through bilateral cooperation and during the general debate in the Human Rights Council.
CIVICUS - World Alliance Citizen Participation said that the decision of Israel to suspend the cooperation with the Universal Periodic Review mechanism had tainted its universal nature. The Human Rights Council should identify the risks to the mechanism in cooperation with civil society organizations, emphasize monitoring and follow up procedures, and make the whole Universal Periodic Review process permanently rooted.
Maarij Foundation for Peace and Development wished for public freedom to be further strengthened, particularly in the United Arab Emirates, where it had launched a process for reform, cooperating with organizations, associations and non-governmental organizations as well as the United Arab Emirates in order to address legal issues in a transparent way. It looked to the Council and the international community to contribute to this.
Human Rights Law Centre said that two years ago non-governmental organizations welcomed Australia’s acceptance of a large number of Universal Periodic Review recommendations and its commitment to translate them into practical action. Two years later, serious violations continued to blight Australia’s human rights record and regression had been witnessed in key areas.
International Organization for the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination said that the Universal Periodic Review was a mechanism of extreme importance. An effective follow-up mechanism was important to ensure its good functioning. The Council had to take concrete action to ensure that Israel understood the consequences of its non-cooperation.
International Youth and Student Movement for the United Nations said that there had been no change in Israel’s policy of persistent non-cooperation with the Universal Periodic Review mechanism, which undermined the credibility of the Universal Periodic Review process. Israel’s review should take place with or without its participation.
For use of the information media; not an official record
HRC13/080E