MORNING - Human Rights Council Concludes Interactive Dialogues on the Right to Development and Starts to Discuss the Right to Privacy
The Human Rights Council this morning held an interactive dialogue with the Expert Mechanism on the Right to Development, and concluded its interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the right to development. The Council then began to discuss a report on the right to privacy in the digital age.
Mihir Kanade, Chair Rapporteur of the Expert Mechanism on the Right to Development, said the Expert Mechanism’s thematic study highlighted the negative effects of racism at both the national and international levels. Racism and racial discrimination could result in the loss of transnational economic opportunities for individuals, and of foreign direct investment, and of relief from debt for developing countries. The Expert Mechanism hoped that the study would help to address racial discrimination and the obstacles it posed to social and economic development worldwide.
In the discussion, many speakers said the full enjoyment of all human rights was a precondition to sustainable development, and racism had negative consequences on development. Compounding inequalities as legacies of colonialism, slavery and apartheid regimes had exacerbated global instability and were barriers to development. Persons from disadvantaged groups faced barriers to housing, health, education and other services and facilities. For the full enjoyment of the right to development, the international community needed to prevent racism in all its forms and fight inequalities. States needed to strengthen cooperation on development through multilateral fora, share best practices, promote human rights for all, and refrain from politicising development policies.
Speaking in the discussion with the Expert Mechanism on the Right to Development were the European Union, Pakistan on behalf of the Organization for Islamic Cooperation, India, Cuba, Iraq, Ethiopia, Venezuela, South Africa, Russian Federation, Namibia, China, Nigeria, Syrian Arab Republic, Armenia, Malaysia, Indonesia, Bolivia, Uganda, Malawi, Iran, Tanzania, Surinam, Algeria, and Azerbaijan.
Also speaking were Centre Europe-Tiers Monde, China NGO Network for International Exchanges, World Barua Organization, Action Canada for Population and Development, International Human Rights Association of American Minorities, China Family Planning Association, Pratyek,Asociazione Comunita Papa Giovanni XXIII, Instituto de Desenvolvimento e Direitos Humanos, and Chunhui Children’s Foundation.
At the beginning of the meeting, the Council concluded its interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the right to development, with speakers saying that inequality, unpaid work, and economic injustice for women were important issues, and there was now a unique opportunity to change the system. Some speakers noted that developing countries had encountered huge obstacles to obtain vaccines, including due to debt. Development had to do with people, not objects, and had to be assessed in the context of improving the quality of life. This was a time to change society.
In concluding remarks, Saad Alfarargi, Special Rapporteur on the right to development, said that all had the collective responsibility to implement the commitments outlined in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. States needed to ensure equality for all regarding health, food, housing and employment, and work to remove obstacles to development. Mr. Alfarargi said that for the remainder of his mandate until May 2023, he would continue to promote the right to development and relevant international agreements.
Speaking in the dialogue were the Asian-Pacific Resource and Research Centre for Women, Beijing Guangming Charity Foundation, Make Mothers Matter, Partners for Transparency, Rencontre Africaine pour la defense des droits de l'homme, Sikh Human Rights Group, Chinese Association for International Understanding, International Muslim Women's Union, and China Society for Human Rights Studies.
Also this morning, the Council started an interactive dialogue on a report by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the right to privacy in the digital age.
Peggy Hicks, Director of the Thematic Engagement, Special Procedures, and Right to Development Division at the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, said that the report identified challenges and best practices regarding the right to privacy in the digital sphere. The right to privacy was under threat from State and non-State actions. States needed to conduct human rights due diligence when designing and developing surveillance technologies, and encourage public debate about their use. Without appropriate safeguards, the world risked walking into a reality where privacy was an unobtainable goal.
In the interactive dialogue, some speakers said privacy was a fundamental human right that enabled the enjoyment of many other rights, such as freedom of opinion and expression, and was crucial for the work of human rights defenders and journalists. The use of digital technologies, be it by governments or private companies, should be regulated by safeguards that were up to date and complied with international human rights law. Digital surveillance or hacking could only be used in very specific and limited cases for legitimate, necessary goals, some speakers said.
Speaking on the right to privacy were Finland on behalf of a group of countries, European Union, Brazil on behalf of a group of countries, France, Switzerland, Morocco, Luxembourg, India, Costa Rica, United Nations Children's Fund, Iraq, Germany, Afghanistan, Venezuela, Russian Federation, Namibia, China, Netherlands, Armenia, Malaysia, Cameroon, United States, Indonesia, United Kingdom, Pakistan, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Ireland, Algeria, Greece, Cuba, Georgia, Malawi, South Africa, Lebanon, and Cambodia.
Also speaking was the Indian National Human Rights Commission, as well as the following non-governmental organizations: Réseau Européen pour l'Égalité des Langues, Article 19 - International Centre Against Censorship, Sikh Human Rights Group, Partners for Transparency, Youth Parliament for SDG, Global Institute for Water, Environment and Health, China Foundation for Human Rights Development, and Istituto Internazionale Maria Ausiliatrice delle Salesiane di Don Bosco .
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 fifty-first regular session can be found here.
The next meeting of the Council will be at 3 p.m. this afternoon, when it will conclude its interactive dialogue on the right to privacy, followed by an interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence.
Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Development
The interactive dialogue with Saad Alfarargi, Special Rapporteur on the right to development, started on 15 September and a summary can be found here.
Discussion
In the discussion, some speakers said the COVID-19 pandemic had had a disproportionate impact on women. Inequality, unpaid work, and economic injustice for women were important issues, and there was now a unique opportunity to change the system, recognising unpaid work as collective work, benefiting society across generations, and as a high-return investment in people. The multiple crises being faced today were due to a failure to recognise that the old system had not worked. The implementation of the right to development was a unique opportunity to move beyond the old system to a well-being economy with care and education at its heart. Some speakers noted that developing countries had encountered huge obstacles to obtain vaccines, including due to debt. Development had to do with people, not objects, and had to be assessed in the context of improving the quality of life. This was a time to change society as a whole.
One speaker said there should be an international legal instrument to freeze and repatriate illicit funds, overseen by the United Nations, as this would aid countries with depleted funds to achieve the right to development. Another speaker said there should be a support system for developing countries to ensure that they received all taxes. Development was a comprehensive, economic, social and cultural process aiming at the improvement of the well-being of the whole population and of all individuals. One speaker said the human right to development also implied the full realisation of self-determination and the enjoyment of resources by the people.
Concluding Remarks
SAAD ALFARARGI, Special Rapporteur on the right to development, said that all had the collective responsibility to implement the commitments outlined in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. States needed to ensure equality for all regarding health, food, housing and employment, and work to remove obstacles to development. Developed States needed to support developing States in achieving these goals. Cooperation with the private sector and civil society was needed to achieve concrete results. Mr. Alfarargi said that he was presenting his last thematic report. For the remainder of his mandate until May 2023, he would continue to promote the right to development and relevant international agreements, and continue to cooperate with the Expert Mechanism on the Right to Development.
Interactive Dialogue with the Expert Mechanism on the Right to Development
Reports
The Council has before it the annual report of the Expert Mechanism on the Right to Development, and its report containing a thematic study on racism, racial discrimination and the right to development (A/HRC/51/36 , A/HRC/51/37).
Presentation
MIHIR KANADE, Chair Rapporteur of the Expert Mechanism on the Right to Development, said since last September, the Expert Mechanism had held two sessions. During the reporting period, the Expert Mechanism had invested considerable efforts to carry out country study visits to feed into its thematic studies, in discharge of the mandate entrusted to it by the Council, namely, to identify and share best practices with Member States and promote the implementation of the right to development worldwide. While two of these study visits were successfully realised, two other visits did not take place.
Today, the Chair was presenting the second thematic study, which addressed “racism, racial discrimination and the right to development”, and examined racism and racial discrimination as barriers to the operationalisation of the right to development in the context of State obligations, international cooperation and global partnerships. The study highlighted the negative effects of racism at both the national and international levels, including the fracture of the national social cohesion which affected the well-being of racialised groups by denying them equitable access to social services, economic opportunities, justice, safety and security.
At the international level, the study identified that racism and racial discrimination could result in the loss of transnational economic opportunities for individuals and of foreign direct investment and relief from debt for developing countries. Finally, the study provided a number of recommendations for Governments, civil society organizations, international organizations, members of the media, private sector organizations and development agencies in the areas of health, housing, employment, education, policing and justice, international cooperation, financing for development, as well as measurement and accountability. The Expert Mechanism hoped that the study would contribute to the deliberations of this Council and advance the right to development and the issue of racism as an “intersection of marginality” and that it would help to address racial discrimination and the obstacles it posed to social and economic development worldwide.
Discussion
In the discussion, many speakers said that the right to development was a universal, inalienable human right. The full enjoyment of all human rights was a precondition to sustainable development, and racism had negative consequences on development. Compounding inequalities as legacies of colonialism, slavery and apartheid regimes had exacerbated global instability and were barriers to development. Many persons from disadvantaged groups faced barriers to housing, health, education and other services and facilities. The COVID-19 pandemic and climate change also threatened development efforts and had a disproportionate impact on developing countries.
For the full enjoyment of the right to development, the international community needed to prevent racism in all its forms and fight inequalities. Some speakers said that civil society organizations and minority groups needed to be included in the deliberation of development polices. States needed to strengthen cooperation on development through multilateral fora, share best practices, promote human rights for all, and refrain from politicising development policies. Women, children, indigenous persons, persons with disabilities and other minority groups needed to be empowered and supported to achieve equality in development.
Several speakers said that the Expert Mechanism played a positive role in promoting cooperation and sustainable development, and expressed support for the mandate. Some speakers called for the creation of a legally binding instrument that obligated States to promote the right to development. A number of speakers welcomed that the report addressed the effects of universal coercive measures on development. Some speakers said that wealthy countries needed to take responsibility for inequalities created through colonialism and provide appropriate repatriation. One speaker said that the conclusions of the country-specific studies presented within the report were concerning. Another speaker said that individuals were rights holders and were responsible for the pursual of development.
Concluding Remarks
MIHIR KANADE, Chair Rapporteur of the Expert Mechanism on the Right to Development, said racism and racial discrimination were among the most important obstacles to the realisation of the right to development, and the study contained a number of conclusions addressing different dimensions of what needed to be done at the national and international levels to overcome these obstacles. On the mandate of the Expert Mechanism, particularly the mandate in searching for, identifying and sharing best practices, and promoting the implementation of the right to development world-wide, the Expert Mechanism understood this as a means to overcome the obstacles to the implementation of the right to development, and thus had to identify the obstacles first. The Expert Mechanism assured that its mandate was distinct from the mandate of the Special Procedures - it did not have a mandate to name and shame or identify particular countries.
The Expert Mechanism was a subsidiary body of the Human Rights Council rather than a Special Procedure, and had produced no study that identified or shamed countries as violators of the right to development, and had no intention of doing so. The idea was to clarify the rights and obligations entailed by the Declaration on the Right to Development, as well as gaps that may have emerged in that regard, including new issues that had become relevant, such as sustainable development. On how relevant United Nations mechanisms could bridge gaps between diverging perspectives on the right to development, the Expert Mechanism considered that it was part of its core functions to identify best practices, to explain the content of the right to development, and to bridge differing views, including the duty of cooperation.
Interactive Dialogue on the Report of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the Right to Privacy
Report
The Council has before it the report of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the right to privacy in the digital age (A/HRC/51/17).
Presentation of Report
PEGGY HICKS, Director of the Thematic Engagement, Special Procedures, and Right to Development Division at the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, said that the report identified challenges and best practices regarding the right to privacy in the digital sphere. The right to privacy was under threat from State and non-State actions. One threat was the extensive use of spyware. Spyware tools such as “Pegasus” could turn people’s phones into 24-hour surveillance devices. Spyware threatened free discourse and expression, and urgent action was needed to address this threat. Some States were taking steps to restrict the use of encryption technology. Mechanisms had also been recently proposed that would scan and analyse messages on all devices. The use of sophisticated video surveillance had rapidly expanded in recent years. These technologies were used to target marginalised groups in particular. Monitoring of public discourse on social media had also become widespread. While certain surveillance activities were necessary, they were frequently used to target political opponents and minorities. Internet users were constantly tracked and assessed. The right to privacy was thus more at risk than ever before.
If being observed became the rule, the world would reach a dystopian future where privacy was impossible. Surveillance of the public needed to comply with human rights laws. States needed to conduct human rights due diligence when designing and developing surveillance technologies, and encourage public debate about their use. The use of spyware should be avoided until appropriate privacy safeguards were in place. Public surveillance methods should follow strict guidelines, and have appropriate oversight. Without appropriate safeguards, the world risked walking into a reality where privacy was an unobtainable goal.
Discussion
In the discussion, speakers said privacy was a fundamental human right that enabled the enjoyment of many other rights, such as freedom of opinion and expression, and was crucial for the work of human rights defenders and journalists. The use of digital technologies, be it by governments or private companies, should be regulated by safeguards that were up to date and complied with international human rights law. It was crucial to understand how human rights could be violated by the use of digital technologies. The failure to regulate the use of digital technologies in institutions that were either not aware of or not incentivised to accommodate human rights could result in substantial harm to democracy and the realisation of human rights. The right to privacy lay at the heart of democracy, and was the key to a wide range of human rights, including the freedoms of expression, dissent and assembly.
Digital surveillance or hacking could only be used in very specific and limited cases for legitimate, necessary goals, some speakers said, as they could easily be repurposed and lead to human rights abuses and violations. In order to reap the benefits from new technologies without weakening the right to privacy, States should ensure that personal data could only be collected, processed and archived under strict conditions and for legitimate purposes, with clearly determined limitations. Interferences with the right to privacy must be proportionate and comply with international human rights law. There was a need for more collaboration with, among others, academia and technology experts, to help anticipate the development and deployment of digital technologies that risked resulting in human rights violations and abuses, identify gaps in regulations, and create solid due diligence processes.
Digital technologies could heighten human rights, but they could also assist both State and non-State actors to commit actions that were a violation of democracy, some speakers said. The development of artificial intelligence solutions and algorithms should not allow discrimination, racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, or misogyny to flourish online. Surveillance and control systems could compromise the development of democratic systems, with a concomitant effect on human rights. All States should respect and protect the right to privacy for all individuals, including in public spaces, and cease using digital technology to suppress the expression of opinions. The dependence on technology harboured threats for human rights and fundamental freedom. Encrypting private information was essential to ensure the right to a private life, and States must respect this as they would any other right, guaranteeing their citizens’ access to robust and reliable encryption services. One speaker condemned the report, and said that it was up to States to ensure online security, and not private companies, which could take part in undermining ethical and cultural values, suppressing dissent online and purging dissent. Mechanisms for feedback could ensure the effective protection of human rights between State entities.
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.
HRC22.087E