MORNING - Human Rights Council Hears that the Special Procedures Have Achieved Gender Parity for the First Time, and that the Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine Has Found Continuing Evidence of War Crimes Committed by Russian Armed Forces in Ukraine
Council Concludes Interactive Dialogue on the Situation of Human Rights in Belarus
The Human Rights Council this morning held its annual discussion on the integration of a gender perspective throughout the work of the Human Rights Council and that of its mechanisms. The Council also concluded an interactive dialogue on the situation of human rights in Belarus, and began an interactive dialogue on the oral update of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine.
Erik Møse Chair of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine, presenting the oral update, said that well into the second year of the armed conflict, people in Ukraine had been continuing to cope with the loss and injury of loved ones, large-scale destruction, suffering, trauma, and economic hardship. Thousands had been killed and injured and millions remained internally displaced or out of the country. There was continuing evidence of war crimes committed by the Russian armed forces in Ukraine. The Commission was now undertaking in-depth investigations regarding unlawful attacks with explosives, torture, sexual and gender-based violence, and attacks on energy infrastructure.
Mr. Møse said the Commission had collected further evidence indicating that the use of torture by Russian armed forces in areas under their control had been widespread and systematic: the principal victims had been persons accused of being informants of the Ukrainian forces. Similar methods of torture were used across different facilities during interrogation sessions, mainly aimed at extracting information from the victims. The Commission was also concerned about the possibility of genocide and incitement to genocide, and was continuing its investigations.
Ukraine, speaking as a country concerned, said until today, accountability for Russia’s criminal legacy in Chechnya, Georgia, Ukraine and Syria was largely lacking, which had paved the way to its aggression against Ukraine. Ukraine was grateful to the United Nations Human Rights Council for its rapid response by setting up the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine with a clear mandate to investigate all alleged violations and abuses of human rights and humanitarian law, in the context of the aggression against Ukraine by the Russian Federation. Ukraine continued to document, investigate and prosecute over 100,000 incidents of war crimes.
In the discussion, some speakers thanked the Commission of Inquiry for the update and the continuous work in investigating all alleged violations and abuses of international law stemming from the Russian aggression against Ukraine. Speakers condemned the systematic and widespread use of torture, the wilful killings and summary executions, attacks on civilians, rape, unlawful confinement and unlawful transfers, as documented by the Commission. Some speakers said Ukrainian children had been transferred or deported to Russian-occupied areas or to the Russian Federation, and separated from their families for a prolonged time. It was vital to ensure the safe return of Ukrainian children and accountability of the perpetrators. Speakers reiterated their resolute condemnation of Russia’s war of aggression, which violated international law and the United Nations Charter. Investigations needed to continue until full accountability and justice were ensured.
At the beginning of the meeting, the Council held its annual discussion on the integration of a gender perspective on the theme of revisiting gender parity and its contributions to the integration of gender into the work of international human rights bodies, including the Human Rights Council and its mechanisms.
Nada Al-Nashif, United Nations Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights, opening the discussion, said the Human Rights Council had demonstrated its commitment to enhancing women’s meaningful participation in its work by requesting the Advisory Committee to prepare a report on the levels of representation of women in human rights organs and mechanisms. Since 2015, there had been increased appointment by the Council of female experts as Special Procedures mandate holders. As an International Gender Champion, the High Commissioner was committed to parity for panel speakers and combatting gender-based violence and vowed to foster the meaningful involvement and participation of young women and girls of diverse origins in programmes and initiatives by the Office.
Aua Baldé, Chair of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, panellist, said 2023 marked an unprecedented moment in the history of the Working Group, which was currently and for the first time composed of five female members. The Working Group had currently 47,774 outstanding cases of which 4,945 concerned women. The gender dimension of enforced disappearances was multi-layered and complex and often not sufficiently recognised. It was only fitting that the international community recognise and publicly celebrate the uncompromising struggle of women who kept alive the fight against enforced disappearances.
Frans Viljoen, Member of the Advisory Committee of the Human Rights Council, panellist, said there had been considerable progress, both within the Human Rights Council Special Procedures and treaty body mechanisms. A majority of thematic special rapporteurships were now held by women, standing at 58 per cent. However, even if most thematic rapporteurs were women, country-specific mandates were still held by a majority of men. A significant part of the report was devoted to the challenges at the national level, which had resulted in an insufficient number of women being nominated for and elected to United Nations positions. The report urged States to ensure that more female candidates were identified, nominated and elected or appointed.
Alejandra Vicente, Legal Director of Redress and member of the GQUAL Campaign Secretariat, panellist, said as of today, out of 81 members holding Special Procedures, 45 were women, namely 55 per cent, leading to gender parity for the first time in the history of the Special Procedures. Such progress was not the result of luck, but the impact of increased attention to gender equality within the work of the Human Rights Council, the concerted action of States that had sponsored key resolutions on gender parity within the Council, the priority of the President of the Council to ensure women were elected to positions where they had been historically left out, and the work of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
In the discussion, some speakers said that achieving gender parity was an urgent priority and was essential to the United Nations’ efficiency, impact and credibility. Gender equality and non-discrimination were two fundamental principles which underpinned the realisation of human rights. Speakers welcomed the Human Rights Council’s increased efforts to achieve balanced gender representation, including as part of the existing system-wide strategy on gender parity. However, challenges remained within the United Nations system which needed to be jointly addressed. The international community was still far away from the target of equal representation in the human rights organs and mechanisms.
The Council also concluded the interactive dialogue on the situation of human rights in Belarus, which began at the previous meeting. A summary can be viewed here.
Nada Al-Nashif, United Nations Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights, in concluding remarks, welcomed the statement of the delegate of Belarus on the need to build dialogue, and not fences, and she looked forward to this occurring. The Office stood ready to engage. Belarus should offer free and unrestricted access to all human rights monitors, and cooperate with the Office and other human rights mechanisms, as well as ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture. On accountability, Member States could work towards this through national proceedings in line with international human rights standards and in the context of extraterritorial and extrajudicial legislation.
In the discussion, some speakers said the report vividly highlighted the heightened plight of human rights defenders in Belarus and those identified as opponents of the regime since the disputed 2020 election. They were concerned about peaceful activists, opposition leaders, journalists and bloggers being held in prisons only because they were not afraid to exercise their rights - the right to participate in peaceful assemblies, to express their opinion and to be involved in political activities. There was severe repression in Belarus with over 40,000 arrests and 12,000 politically motivated prosecutions since 2020.
Speaking in the discussion on gender parity were Spain, Norway on behalf of a group of countries, Canada on behalf of a group of countries, European Union, Indonesia on behalf of a group of countries, Jamaica on behalf of a group of countries, Luxembourg on behalf of Benelux, Chile on behalf of a group of countries, Brazil, France, Switzerland, Costa Rica, Slovenia, United Nations Women, Republic of Korea, Egypt, Colombia, China, Georgia, United Nations Population Fund, Romania, South Africa, Angola, Peru, Togo, Senegal, Mauritius and Sierra Leone.
Also speaking were Action Canada for Population and Development, Asian-Pacific Resource and Research Centre for Women, International Lesbian and Gay Association, Plan International, Inc., and Akshar Foundation.
Speaking in the discussion on Belarus were Human Rights House Foundation, Conscience and Peace Tax International, International Bar Association, Right Livelihood Award Foundation, International Federation for Human Rights Leagues, Institute for Human Rights, Amnesty International, and Institute for Reporters' Freedom and Safety.
Speaking in the discussion on Ukraine were Lithuania on behalf of the Nordic-Baltic states, European Union, Denmark on behalf of a group of countries, United Nations Women, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Republic of Korea, Czechia, Italy, Slovenia, Portugal and Finland.
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-fourth regular session can be found here.
The Council will reconvene at 3 p.m. this afternoon to continue the interactive dialogue on the oral update of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine, followed by an interactive dialogue with the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.
Annual Discussion on the Integration of a Gender Perspective on Revisiting Gender Parity and its Contributions to the Integration of Gender into the Work of International Human Rights Bodies, including the Human Rights Council and its Mechanisms
Opening Statement
NADA AL-NASHIF, United Nations Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights, said the equal representation and participation of women in public and political life was necessary to deliver on the promise of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Some countries had advanced in achieving gender parity in parliament, yet equal representation across all national decision-making bodies remained an elusive goal. According to 2023 data, only 9.8 per cent of countries had women Heads of Government, compared to a decade ago when the figure stood at 7.3 per cent. Women today represented 22.8 per cent of Cabinet Ministers and only 13 countries had gender-equal cabinets. While 2022 marked the year in which women were represented in every single functioning parliament in the world, the share of women parliamentarians today still stood at only 26.5 per cent. For decades, women had also been underrepresented as judges, commissioners, or members of international decision-making bodies, occupying only 44 out 249 seats in international tribunals, 62 out 283 in regional human rights courts, or 46 out of 168 in international commissions.
Women’s participation in public life delivered better and more transformative results. During the COVID pandemic, women’s participation led to more proactive and coordinated policy responses, which prioritised clear communication, rapid response, and social protection. In an open letter issued last June, the High Commissioner called for decisive actions to tackle gender-based discrimination and stereotypes undermining efforts towards parity. These efforts should also be accompanied by practical measures through education and awareness; more ambitious quotas; greater visibility to women role models; and the integration of a gender perspective in the work of international human rights bodies. The Human Rights Council had demonstrated its commitment to enhancing women’s meaningful participation in its work, requesting the Advisory Committee to prepare a report on the levels of representation of women in human rights organs and mechanisms.
Since 2015, there had been increased appointment by the Council of female experts as Special Procedures mandate holders. Some tangible progress was also visible in the treaty bodies, with an increase from 41.8 per cent in 2015, to 52.9 per cent today of women experts in Committees. The Office had developed guidance to help Member States in their efforts towards gender integration and parity, such as the updated handbook issued jointly with the Inter-Parliamentary Union. As an International Gender Champion, the High Commissioner committed to parity for panel speakers and combatting gender-based violence and vowed to foster the meaningful involvement and participation of young women and girls of diverse origins in programmes and initiatives by the Office. The Office had taken decisive steps to close the gender gap: women represented 58 per cent of “professional” staff, and 50 per cent of senior managers. The message of the Office was unequivocal: the participation and equal representation of women were essential for the protection and promotion of human rights.
Statements by the Panellists
AUA BALDÉ, Chair of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, said 2023 marked an unprecedented moment in the history of the Working Group, which was currently and for the first time composed of five female members.
The Working Group had currently 47,774 outstanding cases of which 4,945 concerned women. While women may comprise the minority of the disappeared, they undoubtedly were the majority of those at the forefront of the search for their disappeared relatives, often at great personal risk. The gender dimension of enforced disappearances was multi-layered and complex and often not sufficiently recognised. It encompassed women as victims of enforced disappearances – be it when they themselves were subject to enforced disappearance or by the virtue of their family ties to the disappeared, but also as activists and front-line human rights defenders in the struggle against enforced disappearances. Despite the adversity and maybe because of it, women relatives of the disappeared had emerged as activists, leading human rights movements in a relentless struggle for truth, justice and accountability.
Women had from the beginning created and run family associations and civil society organizations, which in no small measure pushed for, and led to, the adoption of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances, the United Nations international legally binding instrument aiming at preventing and eradicating enforced disappearances. Thus, it was only fitting that the international community recognise and publicly celebrate the uncompromising struggle of women who kept alive the fight against enforced disappearances and who, from the grassroots, influenced the national, regional, and international agendas, including within the various United Nations organs and human rights mechanisms. Women were indeed and had always been, unmistakeably, the driving force behind the quest for truth, justice, reparations, and the memory of victims of enforced disappearances.
The Working Group believed that not one single human rights’ issue would advance and thrive without women’s equal representation in international decision-making bodies. Such change would not happen by chance, but it rather required concerted and conscious efforts and strong political will to translate words into action. If the fight against enforced disappearances – and for that matter, the human rights fight – was to succeed, women must have unhindered access to national, regional and international human rights forums and to taking part actively in all steps of the process, from the decision-making, the implementation and evaluation.
FRANS VILJOEN, Member of the Advisory Committee of the Human Rights Council, said in 2021, the Committee submitted its report ‘Current levels of representation of women in human rights organs and mechanisms: ensuring gender balance’ (A/HRC/47/51). In its resolution 50/18, adopted in 2022, the Council took note of the recommendations contained in this report and encouraged States to consider ways to enhance the participation of women in the work of the Council. In its report, the Advisory Committee expressed concern about the general picture of women’s underrepresentation in United Nations human rights bodies and mechanisms. Part of what the Advisory Committee did today was provide empirical evidence about the extent of female representation within the United Nations human rights world by tracking numbers and percentages.
There had been considerable progress, both within the Human Rights Council Special Procedures and treaty body mechanisms. A majority of thematic special rapporteurships were now held by women, standing at 58 per cent. However, even if most thematic rapporteurs were women, country-specific mandates were still held by a majority of men. Even if, overall, treaty body-gender parity had been achieved, women had never made up the majority in five of these bodies. In its report, the Advisory Committee had some words of criticism about its own composition, noting that the Committee reached its highest female representation in 2020, but at a lowly 39 per cent. However, when the Committee met in August the current female membership stood at 44.4 per cent and would grow to 50 per cent by February 2024
A significant part of the report was devoted to the challenges at the national level, which resulted in an insufficient number of women being nominated for and elected to United Nations positions. The most basic challenge was the absence of formal, transparent and public procedures for selecting candidates, which often favoured the nomination of male candidates. Where national-level selection processes existed, they generally did not require that consideration be given to gender balance. A number of recommendations of the report encouraged the Council and its organs to take a more vociferous leadership role on the issue. One specific example was the recommendation that, ‘where two candidates are of equal merit, the President of the Human Rights Council should recommend the candidate of the underrepresented gender’.
Aligned with the report’s recommendations, the Office of the High Commissioner was making great efforts to disseminate vacancies of Special Procedures widely among women’s networks and kept track of the current gender composition of the mechanisms. The report urged States to ensure that more female candidates were identified, nominated and elected or appointed. In this regard, the recently adopted resolution of the Argentinian Ministry of Foreign Affairs was inspirational. In addition to setting out a transparent and inclusive national selection process for United Nations treaty membership, the resolution championed gender parity in the nomination as part of the equality guarantee in the country’s Constitution and the human rights treaties to which it was party. When voting, States were encouraged to elect members only of the gender that was currently underrepresented in the body. States were also encouraged to study the complete recommendations and to report on their domestic implementation in their periodic reports, and in their national reports presented as part of the Universal Periodic Review process.
ALEJANDRA VICENTE, Legal Director of Redress and member of the GQUAL Campaign Secretariat, said the Gqual Campaign was launched in 2015 in response to a particular concern: despite the right to equality being recognised in several human rights treaties as well as in the Sustainable Development Goals, women were underrepresented in virtually all international human rights and justice institutions. Significant progress had been made since the GQUAL Campaign started its work.
As of today, out of 81 members holding Special Procedures, 45 were women, namely 55 per cent, leading to gender parity for the first time in the history of the Special Procedures. Such progress was not the result of luck, but the impact of increased attention to gender equality within the work of the Human Rights Council, the concerted action of States that had sponsored key resolutions on gender parity within the Council, the priority of the President of the Council to ensure women were elected to positions where they had been historically left out, and the work of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
The work of civil society, including the GQUAL Campaign and many other colleagues, had also been key by pointing to the existing challenges, making data and research available, advocating for change with a wide group of stakeholders, and contributing specific proposals to improve appointment processes to make gender parity a criteria and goal, among others. The work of the Council had positively impacted regional systems, but despite the progress achieved, many challenges remained. As of today, gender parity in the work of the Council was not guaranteed, as it had still not taken key measures that would institutionalise some practices to ensure gender equality.
When it came to the role of States, very few States had implemented public national selection and nomination processes that considered gender parity as a goal. States should adopt formal processes that considered gender parity when selecting, nominating and voting for positions in international courts, bodies and mechanisms. As requested by the Council, the Office was encouraged to submit a progress report on existing nomination policies, practices and mechanisms, highlighting best practices, as well as progress indicators, obstacles to achieving gender parity, and proposed recommendations. The Council should ensure the Office had the resources needed to undertake this task. To conclude, the key message for the Council was that, as the progress made so far was celebrated, gender parity could only be sustained if further action was taken by States, the Council and the Office of the High Commissioner to learn from the recent good practices, and to adopt institutional processes that ensured gender equality in the long run.
Discussion
In the discussion, many speakers welcomed the panel’s theme on gender parity and its contribution to the integration of gender into the work of international human rights bodies, including the Human Rights Council and its mechanisms. Achieving gender parity was an urgent priority and was essential to the United Nations’ efficiency, impact and credibility. Gender equality and non-discrimination were two fundamental principles which underpinned the realisation of human rights. Women's leadership in institutions and in society was transformative and inclusive. Gender parity contributed to the integration of gender perspectives throughout the United Nations human rights mechanisms. This was important for the legitimacy and effectiveness of the Council and its mechanisms.
Some speakers welcomed the Human Rights Council’s increased efforts to achieve balanced gender representation, including as part of the existing system-wide strategy on gender parity. The full, equal and meaningful participation and representation of women in international human rights bodies and United Nations structures was paramount. The Council had taken steps to reduce the gender gaps in human rights bodies and mechanisms, as indicated in the report of the Advisory Committee in 2021. The appointment of a gender focal point in the Council was welcomed, as was the fact that in 2022 for the first time, the Council reached parity in the appointment of Special Procedures mandate holders.
Speakers also recalled the ongoing elaboration, by the Committee for the Elimination of Discriminations against Women, of a new general recommendation on equal and inclusive representation of women in decision-making systems. Many speakers emphasised their support for this resolution which would continue to inspire concrete action by States. Speakers commended human rights mechanisms, including Special Procedures, for addressing the gender dimensions of human rights violations and abuses.
Some speakers noted that challenges remained within the United Nations system which needed to be jointly addressed. System-wide efforts needed to be continued, in areas where the representation of women had fallen below target. The obstacles that women encountered in their professional and political careers were part of a broader pattern of discrimination, which needed to be combatted from a multidimensional approach. The international community was still far away from the target of equal representation in the human rights organs and mechanisms. More women needed to be appointed as members of the treaty bodies and as mandate holders.
Some speakers said governments had a responsibility to appoint women to decision-making positions within countries and in international organizations. Gender parity was about equal representation. Speakers outlined national steps taken to promote the participation of women in all their diversity at all levels of decision making at the global level, including for United Nations bodies. They emphasised their commitment to supporting gender parity at all levels.
Speakers asked what measures were recommended to effectively ensure gender parity in the human rights mechanisms of the United Nations? How could the integration of a gender perspective be further integrated across the human rights architecture? How could men and boys be actors in work to combat gender stereotypes? How could Member States effectively collaborate to enhance gender parity? What were some of the key lessons learned or best practices that had contributed towards gender parity in the Human Rights Council and its mechanisms, and what else could be done to speed up progress?
Concluding Remarks
AUA BALDE, Chair of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, said the progress that had been made in both Special Procedures and treaty body representation needed to be incorporated in a more systematic manner leading to structural changes, as a key issue leading to imbalance had not been addressed: when a position became available, in the requirements for the selection, the gender issue needed to be highlighted. By referring to this gender criteria in the nomination process, States would be forced to take it into consideration: it could not be left to chance.
Beyond that, the international community needed to ask itself what was in the way to stop women from applying to these posts, and women needed to be encouraged to do so by the removal of obstacles, including locally. When a position became available, regional diversity should also be mainstreamed in all mandate holders. The crucial point was that the invisibility of women could not continue. Women had led the human rights movement from the beginning, and their expertise was seldom recognised. As the gender perspective was integrated, these challenges needed to be taken into account, and it should be remembered that it was women doing the work at the grassroots level.
FRANS VILJOEN, Member of the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee, said he wished to highlight that these issues were often embedded in broader societal contexts, and this needed to be addressed. For many States, the impression was that there was a lack of a general, transparent system in the nomination process, irrespective of women’s inclusion. The first point was to encourage the adoption of public, transparent and accessible processes at the national level, and then to mainstream the gender perspective in terms of who would be put forward.
The consistent and persistent patterns of patriarchy remained a major issue, being embedded in these societal forces, including in the treaty body system, and reversing stereotypes would aid in this. There must be a focus on the collaborative energies between men and women when addressing disparities. Gender should not only be understood as an axis of male-female, but should also take into account the non-binary aspect. Energy should be drawn from the positive trends such as the movement to push back against the restriction of reproductive rights.
ALEJANDRA VICENTE, Legal Director of Redress and member of the GQUAL Campaign Secretariat, said States had asked for ways to accelerate gender representation in the work of the Council. The answers were largely provided in the targeted recommendations included in the Advisory Committee report. One concrete recommendation was for States to ensure that women were represented in the consultative group of the Council. The President of the Council could also apply gender guidelines when recommending candidates to be appointed for Special Procedures. The Council could produce periodic reports on progress and additional measures to be undertaken to ensure gender parity in the work of the Council.
Gender parity in the treaty bodies required targeted action by States. Gqual had produced a country ranking to see how many people had been nominated to international positions and how many of those people were women. Countries that were developing a feminist foreign policy should ensure women could be elected to international positions on parity with men. Looking at the procedure adopted by Chile and Argentina, women were nominated and eventually elected to international positions. If other States had adopted those policies, they were encouraged to make them public, and those who had not were encouraged to adopt them. Gqual remained committed to ensure gender parity and policies and mechanisms.
Interactive Dialogue on the Oral Update 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
The interactive dialogue on the oral update 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 started in the previous meeting and a summary can be found here.
Discussion
In the discussion, a number of speakers expressed gratitude for the timely update of the High Commissioner on the situation of human rights in Belarus. The report vividly highlighted the heightened plight of human rights defenders in Belarus and those identified as opponents of the regime since the disputed 2020 election. All were at risk of arbitrary detention, torture and disappearance.
Some speakers were concerned about peaceful activists, opposition leaders, journalists and bloggers being held in prisons only because they were not afraid to exercise their rights - the right to participate in peaceful assemblies, to express their opinion, and to be involved in political activities. There was severe repression in Belarus with over 40,000 arrests and 12,000 politically motivated prosecutions since 2020. Out of these, close to 100 civil society members were imprisoned on fabricated charges.
One speaker said since 2020, over 100 lawyers had faced harassment and been forced to flee the country. On 27 July 2023, prominent lawyer Yuliya Yurgilevich and journalist Pavel Mazheika were sentenced to six years’ imprisonment on spurious charges, including against Yurgilevich for publicising her disbarment and disseminating information on political prisoners. Some speakers were concerned about the arbitrary detention of people held for political reasons, including Maria Kalesnikava and Viktar Babaryka, detained without access to the outside world, including lawyers. A speaker deplored the widespread and systematic human rights violations in Belarus, and condemned the escalating pattern of retaliation against lawyers.
The recent 4 September presidential decree, restricting Belarus nationals in exile from accessing consular services, was unacceptable. It jeopardised the enjoyment of human rights for those exiled and their families, including the right to freedom of movement, work, health, education, and housing. The denunciation of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by Belarus deprived victims of human rights violations from the opportunity to seek remedies via available United Nations mechanisms.
Some speakers called on Belarus to immediately release all individuals arbitrarily detained for political reasons, and ensure that all detained persons had access to lawyers, doctors and their families. Belarus should cease further persecution, and immediately withdraw the presidential decree on consular services. Host States needed to provide all necessary assistance to protect the rights of exiled Belarus nationals and their families. Considering the thousands of innocent victims in Belarusian prisons, United Nations Member States were encouraged to establish a special tribunal for Belarus.
Concluding Remarks
Nada Al-Nashif, United Nations Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights, welcomed the statement of the delegate of Belarus on the need to build dialogue, and not fences, and she looked forward to this occurring. The Office stood ready to engage. On detainees, the Office had documented many cases of politically motivated convictions, with many detainees facing alarming restrictions of communication and on their movement, often held without official information on their whereabouts and well-being, putting them in danger of disappearance. Visits by lawyers were often limited or not allowed, and lawyers faced disbarment for taking on cases. Belarus should offer free and unrestricted access to all human rights monitors, and cooperate with the Office and other human rights mechanisms. It should also ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture. There had been trials in absentia and arbitrary deprivations of citizenship. States must establish safeguards against statelessness.
On restrictions imposed on civil society, Ms. Al-Nashif said that it was of great concern that the authorities criminalised human rights work, including by labelling it as extremism, at a time when such work was crucial for the victims of human rights violations. The Government should give effect to the relevant treaty obligations dealing with human rights defenders in order to ensure the full protection of the range of rights in this area. On supporting human rights defenders and civil society organizations in general, they had a critical role to play, and despite the risks they undertook in such a repressive environment, it was critical that they be able to continue to monitor human rights violations and analyse and collect trends.
These principles of engagement must be upheld; these human rights defenders and civil society organizations did often require technical assistance or fund-raising support. The international community must support those in exile. On accountability, Member States could work towards this through national proceedings in line with international human rights standards and in the context of extraterritorial and extrajudicial legislation. In addition to possible prosecutions, the collection of data and preservation of evidence must continue, and Member States could consider further measures to be taken against those credibly accused of human rights violations.
Interactive Dialogue with the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine
Presentation
ERIK MØSE, Chair of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine, presenting an oral update, said in March, the Council considered the Commission’s comprehensive written report, and extended the Commission’s mandate for another year. Well into the second year of the armed conflict, people in Ukraine had been continuing to cope with the loss and injury of loved ones, large-scale destruction, suffering, trauma, and economic hardship. Thousands had been killed and injured and millions remained internally displaced or out of the country. There was continuing evidence of war crimes committed by the Russian armed forces in Ukraine. The Commission was now undertaking in-depth investigations regarding unlawful attacks with explosives, torture, sexual and gender-based violence, and attacks on energy infrastructure. This may clarify whether torture and attacks on such infrastructure amounted to crimes against humanity.
Recently, the three commissioners had visited the country and held instructive discussions with the authorities in Kyiv. They had held discussions with victims of attacks. The Commission appreciated the cooperation of the Government, and appreciated the willingness of victims to share their experiences. It regretted that all communications addressed to the Russian Federation remained unanswered. The update reflected the Commission’s ongoing investigations, and was a continuation of previous reports. Attacks with explosive weapons in populated areas had led to extensive destruction and damage, and had been the leading cause of death and injuries to the civilian population. There had been attacks on residential buildings, a medical facility, a railway station, restaurants, shops and other facilities, leading to the disruption of essential services and supplies. In most cases, there appeared to be no military presence at the affected sites or in their vicinity. The Commission was investigating the cause of the breach of the dam at Nova Kakhovka.
The Commission had collected further evidence indicating that the use of torture by Russian armed forces in areas under their control had been widespread and systematic: the principal victims were persons accused of being informants of the Ukrainian armed forces. The Commission had found that torture mostly took place in various detention centres controlled by Russian authorities. Similar methods of torture were used across different facilities during interrogation sessions, mainly aimed at extracting information from the victims. Rape and sexual violence had taken place.
The armed conflict had had many devastating consequences for children. There were many incidents on children being transferred to the Russian Federation, and the Commission was of the view that insufficient knowledge about the precise number of children transferred could hamper an expeditious return process. The Commission was also concerned about the possibility of genocide and incitement to genocide, and was continuing its investigations. It was concerned about the scale and gravity of the crimes committed by the Russian Armed Forces and emphasised the need for accountability. It also called upon the Ukrainian forces to investigate the few allegations of human rights violations committed by their own forces.
The Commission insisted on the need to ensure accountability, and for the international community to support such accountability measures.
Statement by the Country Concerned
Ukraine, speaking as a country concerned, said until today, accountability for Russia’s criminal legacy in Chechnya, Georgia, Ukraine and Syria was largely lacking, which had paved the way to its aggression against Ukraine. Ukraine was grateful to the United Nations Human Rights Council for its rapid response by setting up of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine with a clear mandate to investigate all alleged violations and abuses of human rights and humanitarian law, in the context of the aggression against Ukraine by the Russian Federation. The work of the Commission and its findings were integral aspects of the accountability architecture.
Ukraine commended the Commission for its efforts and expressed commitment to continue cooperation and dialogue. Ukraine continued to document, investigate, and prosecute over 100,000 incidents of war crimes, ranging from willful killing, summary execution, torture and ill-treatment, to indiscriminate shelling and unlawful confinement. More than 19,000 Ukrainian children had become the victims of forcible transfer and deportation planned and implemented by the top leadership of the Russian regime, a war crime and crimes against humanity that also could amount to the crime of genocide in line with the 1948 Genocide Convention. Meanwhile, thousands of Ukrainian prisoners of war were subjected to torture. The conduct of the Russian invasion and subsequent occupation had been accompanied by numerous violations on discriminatory grounds, which were also detailed in the Commission’s previous reports. Therefore, documenting and ensuring full accountability was paramount along with the reparation for the damage suffered by the millions of victims and survivors. The Commission’s dedication, efforts and contribution to the quest for justice and accountability remained indispensable.
Discussion
In the discussion, a number of speakers thanked the Commission of Inquiry for the update and the continuous work in investigating all alleged violations and abuses of international law stemming from the Russian aggression against Ukraine. The recently published conference room paper based on a detailed account of the evidence gathered showcased the brutality and the wide range of grave human rights and humanitarian law violations committed by the Russian armed forces. Speakers condemned the systematic and widespread use of torture, the wilful killings and summary executions, attacks on civilians, rape, unlawful confinement, and unlawful transfers, as documented by the Commission.
Some speakers said for 19 months, Russian armed forces had continued to indiscriminately and deliberately kill, torture, commit acts of sexual and gender-based violence against Ukrainian civilians, and destroy vital infrastructure in clear violation of international humanitarian law. Russia was putting global food security and global peace and security at risk. The Commission had also found that in areas under temporary occupation, many of these violations amounted to war crimes, according to a growing body of evidence presented in the Commission’s report.
A number of speakers said Ukrainian children had been transferred or deported to Russian-occupied areas or to the Russian Federation and separated from their families for a prolonged time. Instead of facilitating the reunion of families, the Russian authorities to the contrary dispersed them with the aim of facilitating long-term placement of Ukrainian children in the Russian Federation. This cruel policy was in complete disregard of children’s rights. The International Criminal Court’s decision to issue arrest warrants for Russia’s President Vladimir Putin and Children’s Rights Commissioner Maria Lvova-Belova was an important step towards accountability. It was vital to ensure the safe return of Ukrainian children and accountability of the perpetrators.
Some speakers reiterated their resolute condemnation of Russia’s war of aggression, which violated international law and the United Nations Charter. The continued military support for Russia’s war of aggression provided by Iran and Belarus was also condemned. Speakers reiterated their unwavering support for Ukraine’s independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity within its internationally recognised borders. They agreed with the Commission that comprehensive accountability was paramount, including ensuring the right to truth. There must be no impunity for Russia’s violations of international law. Investigations needed to continue until full accountability and justice were ensured. In this regard, speakers strongly supported the work of this Commission of Inquiry.
Speakers asked the Commission, after the last visit to Ukraine, how could efforts be strengthened to ensure justice for all victims, including comprehensive reparations programmes? Could the Commission elaborate on its views with respect to setting up a possible mechanism for finding and ensuring the safe return of those civilians, especially children, that remained in Russian captivity? How could the needs of persons in vulnerable situations be more effectively addressed?
Produced by the United Nations Information Service in Geneva for use of the 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.
HRC23.124E