HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL HOLDS GENERAL DEBATE ON HUMAN RIGHTS BODIES AND MECHANISMS

The Human Rights Council this afternoon held a general debate on human rights bodies and mechanisms after hearing the presentation of the report of the Forum on Business and Human Rights on its fifth session.

Beatriz Balbin, Chief of the Special Procedures Branch of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, reporting on the 2016 annual United Nations Forum on Business and Human Rights, said its theme had been “Leadership and Leverage: Embedding human rights in the rules and relationships that drive the global economy”. The programme had reflected four key messages, including that the international community needed to step up efforts to improve access to remedy for victims of human rights abuses and protect those in particularly vulnerable situations.

In the ensuing general debate, delegations shared the alarm over the ongoing violations and abuses by transnational corporations and other business enterprises with respect to human rights. Speakers outlined the necessity for human rights bodies and mechanisms to help local businesses and small- and medium-sized enterprises, notably by sharing with them expertise to promote a corporate culture of promoting and protecting human rights. Several developing countries outlined the key challenge to find a balance between different priorities, such as development strategy, poverty eradication, environment and the respect for human rights in business sectors. A number of speakers positively valued the independence and autonomy of the Special Procedures and appreciated their contribution to the international human rights system.

Speaking were Netherlands, Malta on behalf of the European Union, Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, Russian Federation, Spain, Uruguay, Belgium, China, Venezuela, Iraq, Indonesia, Brazil, United States of America, South Africa, Pakistan, Australia, Norway, Ireland, Azerbaijan, Italy and Armenia

The following civil society organizations also took the floor: three United Kingdom Human Rights Institutions (by video message), International Muslim Women’s Union, International Service for Human Rights, Americans for Democracy and human rights in Bahrain, Iraqi Development Organization, Alsalam Foundation, Center for International Environmental Law, Khiam Rehabilitation Centre for Victims of Torture, Conseil International pour le soutien a des Procès équitables et aux Droits de l’Homme, Maarij Foundation for Peace and Development, Lawyers’ Rights Watch Canada, Indian Council of South America, World Muslim Congress, Jssor Youth Organization, Verein Sudwind Entwicklungspolitik, CIVICUS – World Alliance for Citizen Participation, Association for the Protection of Women and Children’s Rights, Mbororo Social and Cultural Development Association, Indigenous People of Africa Coordinating Committee, International Organization for the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination in a joint statement, Association pour l’integration et le Développement Durable au Burundi, World Barua Organization, Liberation, Tourner la page, Le Pont, Association Bharathhi Centre Culturel Franco-Tamoul and Tamil Uzhagam.

The Council will next meet on Monday, 19 June at 9 a.m. to conclude its general debate on human rights bodies and mechanisms, and to hold a general debate on the Universal Periodic Review. It will then hear the presentation of a report by the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the occupied Palestinian territories, followed by a general debate on the human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories.

Documentation

The Council has before it the Report of the Forum on Business and Human Rights on its fifth session - Note by the secretariat (A/HRC/35/34).

Presentation of Report on the 2016 Annual United Nations Forum on Business and Human Rights

BEATRIZ BALBIN, Chief of Special Procedures Branch of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, reporting on the 2016 annual United Nations Forum on Business and Human Rights, noted that it was guided by the Working Group on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises. The comprehensive programme had covered 67 sessions over three days, including three plenary sessions and 64 parallel sessions, and its theme had been “Leadership and Leverage: Embedding human rights in the rules and relationships that drive the global economy”. The programme had reflected four key messages, including that the international community needed to step up efforts to improve access to remedy for victims of human rights abuses and protect those in particularly vulnerable situations.

Highlighting observations and recommendations from the discussions, she underscored that, with regard to government action, States were increasingly taking steps to develop national action plans to implement the Guiding Principles. Discussions on business leadership and leverage considered lessons by companies in integrating their responsibility to respect human rights in internal processes. In discussions on the relationship between the Sustainable Development Goals and the Guiding Principles, it was stressed that businesses must put efforts to advance respect for human rights at the heart of sustainable development. Another key message was that there was a pressing need to address the crackdown on human rights defenders. Forum discussions on initiatives to address the continued struggle of victims of business-related human rights abuses still struggled to gain access to effective remedies. Turning to the 2017 edition of the Forum, she said its theme was “Realizing Access to Remedy” and noted that the Forum aimed to enable action-oriented dialogue. Programme details would be released in due course, and registration would open in late August.

General Debate on Human Rights Bodies and Mechanisms

Netherlands, speaking also on behalf of Belgium and Luxembourg, stated that reprisals against civil society actors affected the essence of the Council’s work. The Council simply could not function properly without hearing the views and concerns of civil society. It was crucial that specific cases of reprisals received public attention and the countries encouraged the Presidency to publicly denounce individual acts of intimidation or reprisals, and to consider publishing allegation letters in the publicly accessible register of cases.

Malta, speaking on behalf of the European Union, reaffirmed its strong commitment to the United Nations bodies promoting human rights. The European Union remained concerned about reprisals against civil society activists and persons who sought to cooperate with the United Nations mechanisms. It encouraged all States to continue to cooperate with the Universal Periodic Review, and expressed appreciation for the role of technical assistance and capacity building in the promotion of human rights.

Pakistan, speaking on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, noted that the Special Procedures should be guided by the principles of universality, impartiality, constructive cooperation and non-politicization. The equitable distribution of financial and human resources was critical for their work. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation welcomed exploring the link between human rights and businesses and said that it was crucial to address core problems of the international financial and economic order with respect to the uneven distribution of wealth and the realization of the right to development.

Russian Federation, speaking on behalf of 20 Like-Minded Countries, was concerned about the continuous attempts by the Special Procedures to arbitrarily interpret their mandates. In some cases, they were involved in issues that were not only beyond their mandates but also out of the competence of the Council itself. That gravely undermined their credibility. The Russian Federation urged the Special Procedures to stick to their mandates and respect the Code of Conduct, which was the basis for their activities.

Spain, speaking also on behalf of Ecuador, Italy, Maldives, Morocco, Philippines and Romania, welcomed the report 35/16 presented by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights which took stock of the panel on the contribution of parliaments to the work of the Council. The countries were convinced that parliaments had a paramount role in advancing the protection and promotion of human rights. However, there were still some shortcomings to tackle, for example, there was a need for parliaments to gain expertise in order to be involved in the international human rights arena.

Uruguay, speaking on behalf of a group of more than 30 countries, stressed the importance of further improving the system of the Special Procedures and their collaboration with States. The countries were concerned about the threats and insults expressed against mandate holders and called on States to cooperate with all human rights international mechanisms. Important steps had been taken to strengthen cooperation, notably by improving transparency, but more needed to be done in order to ensure an effective follow-up of the implementation of all recommendations. All stakeholders shared responsibility in this process.

Belgium said that the Forum on Human Rights and Business was an important meeting, and that Belgium would support the renewal of the mandate of the Working Group. Belgium highlighted the importance of the Special Procedures and said it was regrettable that several States had not responded to issues which had been raised in communications. Victims, representatives of civil society and human rights defenders needed to be protected when communicating with the Special Procedures, and all cases of reprisals should be condemned.

China thanked the Forum for the report submitted to the Human Rights Council, and noted that China had always participated actively in discussions on business and human rights in the Human Rights Council. The constructive role played by the Council in protecting human rights was noted, and the Special Procedures needed to strictly uphold their mandates and work in a fair and impartial way, proposing studies based on reliable and credible sources. Their work should be constructive. The Council should have a system for upholding accountability, while the selection of candidates should reflect diversity, including of legal systems.

Venezuela reiterated the importance of giving greater participatory space to victims. Systematic violations of human rights by transnational corporations should be addressed. Venezuela supported the establishment of legally binding standards on transnational corporations which would lead to their accountability. The international community needed to make the best use of forums. The Special Procedures could become useful instruments that would assist in the implementation of State policies. In practice, there was increasing noncompliance by some Special Procedures.

Iraq said that it believed in the noble value of the work done by migrant workers and it had taken many initiatives to support various projects to create new jobs for all Iraqi people and to provide them with decent living conditions. The International Labour Organization played an important role in supporting the Iraqi Ministry of Employment and Social Affairs by developing the private sector, and extending social protection, national employment policies and legislative reforms.

Indonesia attached great importance to the issue of businesses and human rights, and the implementation of the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. It had actively participated in the Forum on Business and Human Rights since its conception in 2012, and had integrated business and human rights in its National Action Plan on Human Rights. Being a developing country, Indonesia needed to strike a balance between different priorities, such as development strategy, poverty eradication, environment, investment and human rights.

Brazil valued the independence and autonomy of the Special Procedures and appreciated their fundamental contribution to the international human rights system. However, it expressed concern about actions by mandate holders that did not seem to be consistent with the Code of Conduct and the Manual for Operations. Brazil had witnessed the Special Procedures that publicized views without engaging in a fair, objective and transparent dialogue with all parties concerned, and published accounts without seeking to establish facts.

United States expressed concerns about the membership, the accountability agenda, and the effectiveness of the Human Rights Council, noting that when the Council failed to act as it should, it undermined its own credibility and the cause of human rights. Many States used their influence to shield themselves or frustrate efforts to safeguard human rights and fundamental freedoms. Countries with poor human rights records were routinely elected to the Council. Reforms were urgently needed to strengthen the Council’s membership and agenda.

South Africa shared many of the concerns raised by participants during the Forum on the violations and abuses by transnational corporations and other business enterprises with respect to human rights. Without an understanding of the obligations that transnational corporations and other business enterprises bore with respect to fundamental rights, it would not be possible for victims of rights violations to claim access to a remedy against those entities.

Pakistan said the private sector was always the most vibrant part of society, adding that public-private partnerships could be a good tool for the advancement of the United Nations Guiding Principles. Transnational corporations could help local businesses by sharing with them expertise to promote a corporate culture conducive to the promotion and protection of human rights.

Australia encouraged business to apply the Guiding Principles in their operations in Australia and overseas. Australia had recently announced the establishment of a multi-stakeholder group to advise the Government on the implementation of the Guiding Principles. Business and respect for human rights went hand in hand, and Australia looked forward to updating the Human Rights Council further on its own consultations.

Norway noted that the Forum on Business and Human Rights had become the most important international venue for addressing business and human rights. A natural extension of the Forum was to offer more regional opportunities for exchange across stakeholders. Norway welcomed the decision of the organizers to give women a voice at the opening session of the 2017 Forum.

Ireland regretted the rising number of reprisals against human rights defenders and civil society activists who cooperated with the United Nations human rights mechanisms, as well as cases of threats and incidents against Special Procedure mandate holders. It encouraged countries to strengthen their cooperation with Special Procedures.

Azerbaijan underlined that any policy directed at sacrificing human lives should be condemned. The recent report on Armenia highlighted that Syrian refugees who were not of Armenian origin had been refused entry. These actions by Armenia had contradicted all international human rights standards. Azerbaijan called on the United Nations to pay more attention to that issue.

Italy stressed that it had adopted its first national action plan on business and human rights for 2016-2021 with the aim of ensuring its commitment towards the adoption of policy and legislative measures aimed at respecting human rights in all economic activities. Italy was attached to the relevant international standards that were essential to achieve the protection of human rights when it came to business.

Armenia reiterated its strong support for the Universal Periodic Review as an effective tool for international cooperation in the promotion and protection of human rights. The contribution of civil society was vital to the work of the United Nations human rights mechanisms. States should not hinder via, inter alia, reprisals and intimidation, the work of civil society representatives.

Three United Kingdom National Human Rights Institutions, in a joint statement, highlighted that small- and medium-sized enterprises had limited capacities to engage, and reinforced the importance of supporting their participation. Progress had been made in Northern Ireland towards ensuring that human rights requirements were contained within public procurement contracts by the Department of Finance.

International Muslim Women’s Union said all forms of discrimination against women should be combatted, and Indian-occupied Kashmir was one of the places where that occurred. Those who committed those crimes were rarely investigated. Women were suffering depression, and the international conscience was yet to respond to that appalling scenario. Member States should be pressed to prevent violence against women.

International Service for Human Rights said there was a worsening situation of human rights defenders being targeted for engaging with the Council. There had been cases of intimidation and reprisals against defenders from Bahrain, Burundi, China, Egypt, Eritrea, India, Honduras, Japan, Mexico, Myanmar and Venezuela. All States were urged to uphold their duty to combat reprisals. Failing to end impunity for reprisals was complicity with undermining the system created to promote and protect human rights.

Americans for Democracy and Human Rights in Bahrain said Bahrain was stepping up its efforts at reprisals against those cooperating with the Council. Human rights defenders did manage to participate in the last session, but members of their families were detained. During the consideration of the report of Bahrain, a number of vehicles belonging to human rights defenders were set on fire. Reprisals were a source of concern because they were on the rise.

Iraqi Development Organization, in a joint statement, called into question the membership mechanism of the Council as it included States that seriously abused the human rights of children. The Saudi-led coalition in Yemen had been included on the United Nations black list due to its airstrikes that maimed and killed children. Those airstrikes had been responsible for 60 per cent of child casualties in Yemen.

Alsalam Foundation drew the Council’s attention to the lack of cooperation by some countries with Special Procedures, such as for example Bahrain. Despite a clear need to address ongoing human rights violations, Bahrain had continued to deny access to visits by Special Procedure mandate holders. The organization, thus, called on all countries to openly and regularly engage with Special Procedures.

Centre for International Environmental Law reminded that the human rights to food, water and a healthy environment had an important gender dimension. It recommended that the Forum on Business and Human Rights and the Intergovernmental Working Group on Business and Human Rights investigate how States could best ensure effective remedies for their citizens, especially women and girls, when the responsibility to fulfil those obligations had been transferred to private enterprises.

Khiam Rehabilitation Centre for Victims of Torture underscored that the people of Bahrain had suffered for many years. In the Gulf region, it was urgent to provide help and assistance to the victims of the conflict in Yemen which had been transformed into a battlefield by Saudi Arabia. Khiam Rehabilitation Centre for Victims of Torture expressed concern about how the Council would handle the new relations between Qatar and Saudi Arabia after ties had been cut between the two countries.

Conseil International pour le soutien a des Procès équitables et aux Droits de l’Homme expressed concerns about policies of Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain of investing sovereign funds in the United Kingdom and the United States without monitoring procedures by the people. Such practices could lead to a collusion of interests.

Maarij Foundation for Peace and Development appreciated the role of the Office of the High Commissioner in order to promote human rights around the world. Maarij Foundation for Peace and Development reiterated its full support to the High Commissioner and called on all countries to abide by their financial commitments to the Council and to allow country visits by mandate holders.

Lawyers’ Rights Watch Canada said the Council, along with civil society, should study and develop methods to ensure that States undertook specific human rights commitments as a condition of election and membership, along with abolishing the practice of closed slates. Elections should be based on nominees’ commitments to respect and fulfil rights for all.

Indian Council of South America said the upcoming Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples could not address the cases of peoples in Alaska. The resolution coming out of the January, 2013 meeting had a disclaimer saying Ronald Barnes did not agree with the resolution. The term “free political institution” meant puppet organizations could not be used to settle agreements. The cases of Alaska, Hawaii and Yemen were recommended as study objects.

World Muslim Congress said one of the most difficult situations for Special Procedures to handle was India, which had issued an order in Kashmir. The Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression and the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders had urged India to restore social networks in Jammu and Kashmir, but the Government had failed to respond.

Jssor Youth Organization underlined the importance of recognizing the voice of youth and the need for the Council to implement best practices and improved mechanisms for youth inclusion. Youth needed to have the opportunity to speak up as they would be the ones affected by many decisions made at the Council.

Verein Sudwind Entwicklungspolitik noted that cooperation with human rights bodies by States included answering the communications of Special Procedures with precise and updated information. It cited an example of Iran’s lack of response concerning a prisoner of conscience Arash Sadeghi, who had been on a hunger strike for 72 days until early January 2017.

CIVICUS – World Alliance for Citizen Participation stated that there was on average a 50 per cent response rate from Governments to alerts and other communications. However, Ethiopia had shown no response to the numerous alerts regarding the violent crackdown on peaceful protests, which had reportedly led to the death of more than 800 people since November 2015.

Association for the Protection of Women and Children’s Rights stressed that Special Procedures played a significant role in protecting and promoting human rights. In Kashmir, it was difficult for human defenders to work and cooperate with United Nations mechanisms. The internet and telecommunication bans constituted collective punishment and pointed to the failure of the Indian Government to meet human rights standards.

Mbororo Social and Cultural Development Association voiced concerns about the ongoing violations of the right of the indigenous people in India to live on their ancestral lands. The low representation of indigenous people in decision-making processes in India was equally worrisome. Mbororo Social and Cultural Development Association called on the Government of India to ensure the respect of indigenous people’s constitutional rights.

Indigenous People of Africa Coordinating Committee underscored that indigenous people in India were pushed to the outskirts of the main cities. Their right to access their ancestral land was being denied so as other of their basic human rights.

International Organization for the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, in a joint statement, expressed concern at the summary report’s observation that many export credit agencies and development finance institutions had yet to take effective steps to ensure the protection of human rights in the course of their supported projects. Member States should take immediate steps to bring their export credit agencies in line with the Guiding Principles.

Association pour l’integration et le Développement Durable au Burundi drew the attention of the Human Rights Council to the illegal mining of oil in India. Workers of the companies were denied their identity cards. A public meeting had been broken up by military elements. The Human Rights Council should investigate the oil company.

World Barua Organization said there was a pattern on how companies tried to penetrate smaller areas. Coca-Cola had been setting up a project even though there was a history of being responsible for toxic waste and disturbing of the groundwater. A Japanese company had set up business on wetland. The Human Rights Council should defend the rights of citizens disturbed by transnational corporations.

Liberation drew attention to the fact that some countries did not respect the Human Rights Council, perpetuating mistreatment of their populations. In Assam in India the local population was maltreated due to the Armed Forces Special Powers Act. Delay or failure in peace talks would result in a conflict between the indigenous peoples of Assam and the Government of India.

Tourner la page noted that the Tamils in Sri Lanka had been victims of the military occupation in the north of the island. Even though the Government had promised to engage in transitional justice, it had nevertheless perpetrated numerous human rights abuses against the Tamil population. The organization called that justice be provided to the Tamils worldwide.

Le Pont called attention to the problem of torture in Sri Lanka and the fact that the Government had not repealed the Prevention of Terrorism Act as promised. In the interest of victims, it was highly desirable that the Council set up a permanent office in the north of Sri Lanka to continuously monitor the situation and restore confidence among the Tamils.

Association Bharathhi Centre Culturel Franco-Tamoul expressed concerns about the non-respect of United Nations obligations and commitments by the Government of Sri Lanka. The Tamil community was still targeted by land grabbing and faced gross violations of human rights. Tamil people were marginalized in north eastern regions. Their economic, social, political and civil rights were denied.

Tamil Uzhagam stated that north and east areas of Sri Lanka were still occupied by national armed forces. Members of the Tamil community were held prisoners and non-governmental organizations faced repeated threats. The law on terrorism was regularly used against civilians. Tamil Uzhagam called on Sri Lanka to abide by its international obligations.



For use of the information media; not an official record

HRC17/099E