MORNING - Human Rights Council Holds Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on Adequate Housing, Starts an Interactive Dialogue with the High Commissioner on her Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Belarus
The Human Rights Council this morning held an interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing on his report on spatial segregation and the right to adequate housing. It then started an interactive dialogue with the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on her report on the situation of human rights in Belarus in the run-up to the 2020 presidential election and in its aftermath.
Balakrishnan Rajagopal, Special Rapporteur on adequate housing, said spatial segregation could be understood as imposed or preferred separation of groups of people in a particular territory along the lines of race, caste, ethnicity, language, religion, disability, income or other status. It was almost always characterised by economic and social exclusion, and inequality in accessing infrastructure, services and livelihood. Across the globe, many groups were affected by systemic housing discrimination. It was an important facet in the current debate on racial justice and equality for Afro-descendent communities in many countries. Vulnerable groups living in distressed communities were disproportionately impacted by the pandemic and by climate change.
In the discussion on the right to adequate housing, speakers said that spatial segregation was a major obstacle to obtaining adequate housing. Spatial discrimination impacted on other rights, such as the right to education and the right to work. The increased vulnerability of women and children without dignified housing was noted. Concerns on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on spatial segregation were also expressed. Further concerns were expressed about the increased scarcity of land being one of the main obstacles to reach adequate housing.
Speaking in the interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the right to adequate housing were: European Union, Saudi Arabia on behalf of the Gulf
Cooperation Countries, Pakistan on behalf of the Organization for Islamic Cooperation, Finland on behalf of the Nordic-Baltic countries, Paraguay, Sovereign Order of Malta, Nepal, Egypt, Libya, Malaysia, Iraq, Venezuela, Maldives, Luxemburg, India, Viet Nam, Namibia, China, Armenia, Palestine, Russian Federation, Cambodia, Indonesia, Benin, Morocco, Algeria, South Africa, Bangladesh, United States, Bahrain, Azerbaijan, Malawi, Bolivia, UN-Habitat, Ukraine, Saudi Arabia and Georgia.
Also speaking were: Adalah - the Legal Centre for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, Al-Mezan Centre for Human Rights, Action Canada for Population and Development, Human Rights Advocates, International Lesbian and Gay Association, Justicia Global, Palestinian Initiative for the Promotion of Global Dialogue and Democracy - MIFTAH, VIVAT International, Caritas International, and Society for Threatened Peoples.
The Council then heard the High Commissioner present her report on the situation of human rights in Belarus in the run-up to the 2020 presidential election and in its aftermath.
Michelle Bachelet, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, said her Office had found considerable evidence of human rights violations committed between 1 May 2020 and 31 December 2021, as large-scale protests took place following the incumbent President’s declaration of victory in the election of 9 August 2020. The Government had responded with a massive crackdown, including widespread and excessive use of force. Protestors were beaten until they lost consciousness. Numerous closed and summary administrative trials were held in detention facilities without basic procedural guarantees. The authorities had massively cracked down on independent media and civil society and brought criminal charges against journalists and human rights defenders. Around 1,085 people were currently in prison on politically motivated charges.
Belarus, speaking as a country concerned, said that the Colour Revolution had failed, but its sponsors in Western countries did not accept this, and the order to destroy the legitimate Government still stood, with an unrelenting campaign of direct threats to economic sovereignty, economic sanctions, daily fake news, political pressure, and the suspension of inter-governmental contacts. Part of this pressure included the report of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights - this product was not about human rights in Belarus, it was full to the brim of accusations and false conclusions, aiming to support any organization as long as it sought to destroy Belarus.
In the discussion on Belarus, speakers said the findings of the report concerning the widespread and systematic nature of the violations of human rights were alarming. The human rights violations of civil society in Belarus needed to stop. Other speakers said the report was biased, selective and politicised and aimed to manipulate the Human Right Council. The report used questionable methods, unverified testimonies and presented a unilateral and oversimplified analysis of the events. Speakers were further convinced that the situation in Belarus did not merit the attention of the Council and condemned all forms of foreign interference.
Speaking in the dialogue on Belarus were Iceland on behalf of the Nordic-Baltic countries, European Union, Liechtenstein, Germany, Finland, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Estonia, Venezuela, France, Cuba, Syria, Luxemburg, China, Switzerland, Sri Lanka, Lithuania, Austria, Russian Federation, Cambodia, Australia, Sweden, Ireland, Slovakia, United States, Belgium, Romania, Netherlands, Greece, Czech Republic, Albania, Nicaragua, Croatia, Eritrea and Poland.
The webcast of the Human Rights Council meetings can be found here. All meeting summaries can be found here. Documents and reports related to the Human Rights Council’s forty-ninth regular session can be found here.
The Council will reconvene at 3 p.m. this afternoon to conclude the interactive dialogue on the situation of human rights in Belarus. It will then hold an interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iran, followed by an interactive dialogue on the oral update of the High Commissioner on the human rights situation in Venezuela.
Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on Adequate Housing as a Component of the Right to an Adequate Standard of Living, and on the Right to Non-Discrimination in this Context
Documentation
The Council has before it the report of the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing, Balakrishnan Rajagopal, addressing spatial segregation and the right to adequate housing (A/HRC/49/48).
Presentation of Report
BALAKRISHNAN RAJAGOPAL, Special Rapporteur on adequate housing, presenting his report on spatial segregation and the right to adequate housing, said spatial segregation could be understood as imposed or preferred separation of groups of people in a particular territory along the lines of race, caste, ethnicity, language, religion, disability, income or other status. It was almost always characterised by economic and social exclusion, and inequality in accessing infrastructure, services and livelihood. Across the globe many groups were affected by systemic housing discrimination. It was an important facet in the current debate on racial justice and equality for Afro-descendent communities in many countries. Vulnerable groups living in distressed communities were disproportionately impacted by the pandemic and by climate change. Segregation was a form of discrimination, as recognised by international human rights law; and the international community had defined apartheid as a crime against humanity. It went hand in hand with a violation of core elements of housing as a human right - legal security of tenure; availability of services, materials, facilities and infrastructure; affordability; habitability; accessibility; location; and cultural adequacy.
Forms of spatial segregation were highlighted: informal settlements in the peripheries of many cities; gated communities for wealthy inhabitants; and placing of particular groups in institutions, hostels or camps. Key drivers of segregation included land use planning and discriminatory zoning, physical barriers or separation walls between communities, forced evictions, and policies that stigmatised vulnerable groups. Spatial segregation was a structural problem that could be prevented and reduced; human rights law, the Sustainable Development Goals, and the New Urban Agenda provided a solid framework for action. The report underlined that strategic litigation, inclusive housing and land policies, housing voucher programmes and inclusive urban planning and zoning could ensure spatial justice. Several recommendations were outlined in the report: States should refrain from pursuing segregationist policies; and they should undertake a rigorous analysis of their laws, policies and programmes to ensure that those do not result in conditions amounting to spatial segregation. Urban and territorial planning mechanisms should be reformed by States to ensure non-discrimination. Also, segregation of internally displaced persons, asylum-seekers, refugees, migrants, older persons, persons with disabilities and other marginalised groups in institutions, collective shelters or camp settings had to be reduced.
Discussion
In the discussion, speakers thanked the Special Rapporteur for his report. The deep-seated impact of spatial segregation on the most marginalised populations was particularly striking. Spatial segregation must be addressed as it violated the right to adequate housing. Spatial segregation was a major obstacle to obtaining adequate housing and women and girls, people with disabilities and vulnerable people suffered disproportionately from spatial segregation. Segregation based on race, gender, ethnic or religious characteristics hindered the right to housing but also the right to health, education and other fundamental rights. Speakers recognised that addressing and reverting spatial segregation was vital and connected to multiple interlinked discrimination. Spatial discrimination impacted on other rights, such as the right to education and the right to work. The increased vulnerability of women and children without dignified housing was noted.
Some speakers said that States were adopting spatial segregation to perpetuate racial segregation. Concerns were expressed about attacks against civilians' homes and housing, and particularly in Ukraine due to the Russian invasion, as well as in East Jerusalem where Palestinians were forcibly expelled from their homes. In United Nations recognised disputed territories, minorities faced numerous violations, including spatial segregation and discrimination. Concerns on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on spatial segregation were also expressed. The right to adequate housing was an urgent and critical component to promote equitable development and in particular the Sustainable Development Goal 11, whose target was access for all people to basic, adequate, safe and affordable services. Further concerns were expressed about the increased scarcity of land being one of the main obstacles to reach adequate housing. The vital importance of council housing and affordable housing schemes was highlighted as many areas with low income populations were deprived of basic services and infrastructure.
Interim Remarks
BALAKRISHNAN RAJAGOPAL, Special Rapporteur on the right to adequate housing, responding to the question about how States could best address the consequences of spatial segregation, said the report outlined how this could be done, but broadly there were three steps: to identify patterns, collecting data; preventing segregation through a variety of different measures; and proactively assisting in reducing barriers, including by pushing for more integration. As spatial segregation involved many intersecting forms of discrimination and linked causes, many measures were required to solve it, including urban planning, neighbourhood upgrading, and others. On limiting the impact of climate change, this was a very large topic, but a report was planned that would focus on this matter and its impact on the right to housing. It was very important to have a solid basis for impact assessments, predictive modelling data, and a strong and robust plan for the relocation of communities that were affected. On the Durban Declaration, this report on segregation was part of two different reports - the last report to the General Assembly had been on discrimination, and they were two sides of the same coin and should be read together. The other report had multiple references to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action.
Discussion
Pursuing the discussion, speakers condemned the idea of spatial segregation and stated that housing should be guaranteed without any discrimination of any kind and should be made accessible regardless of gender, race, sexual identity, indigeneity, disability etc. The right to adequate housing was part of the right to life and non-discrimination was at the heart of policies of sustainable development. The increased scarcity of land was mentioned as one of the obstacles to reaching adequate housing. Council housing or affordable housing schemes should be made available for all. Climate change was a key driver to impeding the right to adequate housing, particularly in small islands developing States. As required by international law, the prohibition on forced eviction should be enforced. Among specific situations mentioned were Russia's destruction of infrastructure in Ukraine; Houthi militias bombing housing in Yemen; Black South Africans facing land segregation; and the forced expulsions of Palestinians in the West Bank. The specific situation of sex workers and the multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination they faced were also highlighted. Those measures were rooted in patriarchy compounded by racist, ableist and other measures and were feeding social exclusion. States needed to stop evading their obligations towards the most vulnerable. Land management and spatial planning needed to be inclusive.
Concluding Remarks
BALAKRISHNAN RAJAGOPAL, Special Rapporteur on the right to adequate housing, in response to the question on how to encourage international cooperation and capacity building in spatial segregation, drew attention to Sustainable Development Goal number 10 and the indicators and targets mentioned under that, including on income growth for the bottom 40 per cent of the population, and he hoped that commitments like these could be the basis for more active international cooperation. The target for the bottom 40 per cent was not without its problems, but it was nevertheless a very important commitment, and States should take the commitments under this Sustainable Development Goal, and combine it with other commitments, including Sustainable Development Goal 11. On the question of land, he agreed strongly that it was very important that if spatial segregation was to be tackled, it should be recognised that housing and land were tightly intertwined, and often the issue began with that of control over land. Democratising access to land, as seen in twenty-first century South Africa, was the issue.
On Ukraine and accountability, he drew attention to the statement he had made a few days ago, and noted that one of his thematic priorities during his time as a Special Rapporteur was to focus on the relationship between conflict and humanitarian responses with regard to the right to housing, and the impact on civilian housing required an examination as a serious global crisis, which he hoped to engage with in his next report to the General Assembly. He deplored any direct disproportionate attack against civilian housing and infrastructure, which was, per se, a violation of international laws of various kinds, and must be prevented. The question of spatial segregation was not an easy one - it was a structural human rights challenge, with intersecting forms of discrimination, and was on a continuum between discrimination on one hand, to these patterns metastasising into patterns of segregation, and then this becoming worse to a shape of apartheid, which was criminalised under international law. The international community was committed to eliminating such inequality, and should reverse the damaging consequences of segregation before it metastasised into something far worse.
Interactive Dialogue with the High Commissioner for Human Rights on her Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Belarus
Documentation
The Council has before it (A/HRC/49/71) report of the High Commissioner on the situation of human rights in Belarus in the run-up to the 2020 presidential election and in its aftermath .
Presentation of Report
MICHELLE BACHELET, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights , presenting her report on the situation of human rights in Belarus in the run-up to the 2020 presidential election and in its aftermath, said her Office had found considerable evidence of human rights violations committed between 1 May 2020 and 31 December 2021, as large-scale protests took place following the incumbent President’s declaration of victory in the election of 9 August 2020. The Government had responded with a massive crackdown, including widespread and excessive use of force.
Between 9 and 14 August, at least seven State security forces, including the presidential security service, were involved in responding to peaceful protests in all six administrative regions of Belarus. Protestors were beaten until they lost consciousness. Crowd control agents such as stun grenades and rubber-coated steel bullets were fired directly at demonstrators, causing many severe injuries. Men in black uniforms without insignia, wearing balaclavas, also participated in violent attacks against protestors. Numerous closed and summary administrative trials were held in detention facilities without basic procedural guarantees. According to many defendants, these trials often lasted a few minutes. With few exceptions, the judges ignored defendants, despite visible injuries, when they raised objection that they had been tortured or ill-treated. The Government pursued and persecuted people exercising their rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, association and participation in public affairs throughout the reporting period, and continued to do so. The authorities had massively cracked down on independent media and civil society, raiding and shutting down media outlets; liquidating independent civil society groups, including major human rights organizations; and bringing criminal charges against journalists and human rights defenders. Around 1,085 people were currently in prison on politically motivated charges, the High Commissioner said.
In conclusion, Ms. Bachelet said that Belarus had sought to suppress all forms of criticism, and had actively tried to prevent justice, accountability and truth about the violations committed. Given the absence of effective investigations, there was no reasonable expectation for national systems to deliver justice. She urged the Government of Belarus to immediately release all prisoners sentenced on politically motivated grounds, and to cease all other ongoing human rights violations, including the systematic repression of civil society, independent media, and opposition groups. The High Commissioner also urged prompt, effective, transparent, and independent investigations into all past human rights violations or crimes under national or international law, with provision of appropriate remedies. Only an inclusive dialogue could pave the way towards a sustainable future for all Belarusians.
Statement by Country Concerned
Belarus , speaking as a country concerned, said that Belarus had consistently drawn the attention of the Human Rights Council to the events in and around the country that took place in the context of the Presidential elections in 2020. The Colour Revolution had failed, but its sponsors in Western countries did not accept this, and the order to destroy the legitimate Government still stood, with an unrelenting campaign of direct threats to economic sovereignty, economic sanctions, daily fake news, political pressure, and the suspension of inter-governmental contacts. Part of this pressure included the report of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights - this product was not about human rights in Belarus, it was full to the brim of accusations and false conclusions, aiming to support any organization as long as it sought to destroy Belarus.
This practise was incompatible with the principles of the United Nations, aimed at violating the sovereign rights of the State, and interfering in its internal affairs. Belarus did not recognise the resolution, which was in flagrant violation of the Charter, and undermined the independence of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. The Office of the High Commissioner showed a lack of neutrality in implementing the resolution, as evidenced by the colossal amount of money asked for to implement the resolution. On the emergency landing of a RyanAir flight in Minsk, the Office of the High Commissioner had disseminated fake and fabricated information about the forced seizure of a passenger. The suspension of the flights of European airlines to Belarus had overnight denied millions of Belarus citizens and those of other countries their freedom of movement. The Office of the High Commissioner and its officials had not said a word about this in their report or any statement. These arbitrary Western restrictions were a manifestation of the so-called “rules-based order”, based in Washington, Brussels, and other Western capitals. The Office of the High Commissioner was part of the United Nations Secretariat and must remain independent and neutral. The report was a dangerous trend in the activities of the United Nations human rights mechanisms, namely interference in the affairs of a sovereign State, aiming to dictate conditions. Belarus had civilised ways for internal political reform and was open to cooperating in the field of human rights on the basis of mutual and respectful dialogue.
Discussion
In the discussion on Belarus, speakers thanked the High Commissioner for her report and expressed their full support for the renewal of her mandate on Belarus. They considered the findings of the report on the widespread and systematic nature of the violations of human rights to be alarming. The situation in Belarus was deemed worse than ever. A number of speakers were appalled by the unprecedented scale of violation of human rights in the country with almost 1,100 political prisoners who were tortured or detained in inhuman conditions. The independent media had been eradicated and patterns of unwarranted use of force, including rape and gender-based violence, were noted. Some speakers stood by the Belarusian people and would continue to fight for their human rights. The human rights violations of civil society in Belarus needed to stop. The Lukashenko Government was on a destructive path. Calls were made on Belarus to establish a moratorium on the death penalty. Speakers strongly condemned the involvement of Belarus in Russia's aggression in Ukraine and calls were made upon Belarus to stop supporting the Russian aggression. Solidarity with Ukraine and its people was expressed.
Some speakers said the report was biased, selective and politicised, aimed at attempting to manipulate the Human Right Council. The main goal of the process was to demonise the Government of Belarus which was unacceptable. The presentation of this report was imposed by the European Union, and it was a dangerous precedent that gave power of court to the High Commissioner which was totally out of her mandate. The report used questionable methods, unverified testimonies and presented a unilateral and oversimplified analysis of the events in Belarus. It was disgraceful to intervene in the internal affairs of a sovereign State. Speakers were further convinced that the situation in Belarus did not merit the attention of the Council and condemned all forms of foreign interference. Speakers stood against the targeting of sovereign States under the pretext of investigating the situation of human rights in any country. Foreign interferences that undermined the sovereignty of Belarus, that had nothing to do with human rights, and that did not have the consent of Belarus were not acceptable. Speakers supported the Government of President Lukashenko and rejected all signs of double standards.
Produced by the United Nations Information Service in Geneva for use of the information media;
not an official record. English and French versions of our releases are different as they are the product of two separate coverage teams that work independently.
HRC22.034E