HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL CONCLUDES SEVENTH REGULAR SESSION

The Human Rights Council this morning officially concluded the work of its seventh regular session, adopting its reports to the General Assembly, and hearing general comments from 23 speakers on issues concerning renewed mandates, the upcoming Universal Periodic Review, and the issue of defamation of religions, among others.

While several speakers commented, largely positively, on the renewed mandate of the Special Rapporteur on protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, there were contrasting opinions expressed on the renewed mandate of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression. While one group felt that amendments to the resolution setting out the renewed mandate had "degraded its very core", and that the resolution adopted attempted to "legitimize the criminalization of expression", others felt that, while recognizing that freedom of expression was a cornerstone of society, that could not be achieved without respect of the human rights of everyone. Enacting guarantees against incitement where and when necessary on discrimination on any grounds were essential to maintain a healthy society. Syria and Sudan thanked Members for having voted for resolutions concerning those two countries, which they welcomed. In this same context the issue of defamation of religions was discussed, with a number of speakers commenting on the recent release of the anti-Islamic film by a Dutch Parliamentarian, as well as thanking the High Commissioner for Human Rights for her condemnatory statement in that regard.

Also discussed were resolutions adopted on the staffing of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the resolution on the human rights situation in Myanmar. At the end of the morning a number of speakers voiced concerns about an urgent need for clarity in the modalities of the Universal Periodic Review process, as the first round of the review was due to start next week.

Speaking in general comments today were Spain, Syria, Algeria, Australia, Turkey, United States, Canada, Egypt on behalf of the African Group, Thailand, Bhutan, Palestine on behalf of the Arab Group, Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, Slovenia on behalf of the European Union, Denmark, Sudan, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Egypt, Russian Federation, India and China.

Also speaking this morning were the President of the Council, Doru Romulus Costea, who made some concluding observations on the seventh session and touched on issues related to the appointment of Special Procedures and the Universal Periodic Review process, and Alejandro Artucio, the Council Rapporteur, who presented the Council's reports on its seventh session to the General Assembly, which were subsequently adopted.

The eighth regular session of the Human Rights Council is scheduled to be held from 2 to 13 June at the Palais des Nations in Geneva, although the President said that the Bureau would meet to discuss the possibility of extending the session by a third week.

General Comments

JAVIER GARRIGUES FLOREZ (Spain), referring to resolution L.20 on protecting human rights while countering terrorism, said the text imposed a reinstatement of the topic on the agenda of the Council. It was valued that the final draft encompassed the majority of the basic elements which made up the structure of the initiatives. However, it would have been preferred if the resolution was more operative and less rhetorical and maintained a number of elements such as the recognition that terrorists led to the destruction of human rights and impeded the enjoyment of human rights. This issue was left out of the final text. Spain trusted that in 2009 Mexico would put back this element into the draft to take more into account the sensitivities of the victims of the terrorism. Spain would continue to work to that end in the future and would put forth proposals.

FAYSAL KHABBAZ HAMOUI (Syria) thanked the States that had voted for the resolution on the occupied Syrian Golan, which confirmed their commitment to the respect of human rights throughout the world without distinctions. As for those States that had turned their backs on the resolution, they had sent a negative message. It was regretted that Israel had humiliated the Council by comparing it to a play from the theatre of the absurd. Israeli violations of the basic rights of Arab populations occurring every day in the occupied territories were made known to the world through the mass media. Israel had to withdraw from the occupied territories, it had to behave in a civilized way, and it had to respect international law. Only then would Israel would be free of condemnation from the international community.

IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria), referring to resolution L.8/Rev.1 on the composition of the staff of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), said that the delegations of some developed countries had explained at great lengths why they felt the Human Rights Council had no legal entitlement to comment on the skewed geographical distribution of the staff of the OHCHR. Yet the Commission on Human Rights, whose roles and responsibilities with respect to the work of OHCHR were now exercised by the Council by virtue of its institution-building text, had adopted resolution 2002/80 requesting a first Joint Inspection Unit (JIU) report on staff imbalance. The latter, issued in 2004, had deplored that skewing. So why should the Council not exercise the same role as the Commission in that respect? Furthermore, the United Nations Secretary-General had asked that the Council review the persisting staff imbalance of OHCHR mentioned in the second JIU report in 2006. Should the Council ignore the Secretary-General's position as well? On the resolution adopted on the right to food, Algeria congratulated the co-sponsors of that initiative, and in particular Cuba. However, Algeria was worried that, in the adopted text, the objective of halving the "number" of undernourished persons proclaimed by the World Food Summit had been assimilated with the very different objective of the United Nations Millennium Summit of reducing the "proportion" of the undernourished by half. Thus 170 million hungry people, representing the difference between those two objectives, had been disregarded.

GUY O’BRIEN (Australia) said Australia strongly supported the work of the Special Rapporteur on Sudan as well those with the United Nations, the international community and within Sudan itself who sought to address the abuse of human rights in Sudan. However, Australia was disappointed with the final content of the resolution on the situation of human rights in Sudan and endorsed the comments made by Canada when the resolution was considered by the Council during the current session. The resolution had not accurately reflected the deterioration of human rights and the humanitarian situation on the ground, nor did it acknowledge that the situation in Darfur had been referred to the International Criminal Court by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1593. Australia remained deeply concerned about the ongoing human rights violations in Sudan and regretted that the Council did not comprehensively condemn the actions of those responsible.

H. YONCA OZCERI (Turkey), speaking on the resolution on the protection of human rights and fundamental rights while countering terrorism, highly appreciated the efforts of the main sponsor in drafting that resolution. However, it would have been preferred if such an important resolution had been circulated at an earlier stage and had been the subject of more than one informal consultation. All acts of terrorism had to be unequivocally condemned. International cooperation in combating terrorism was crucial. Turkey was glad that some of its comments had been incorporated in the resolution, but not all of them had. As to the dialogue with the Special Rapporteur Turkey wished to reiterate its concern that he had reviewed issues that went beyond his mandate.

WARREN W. TICHENOR (United States) recalled that all Governments in the Council had a responsibility to uphold the United Nations Charter and their obligations to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Friday’s proceeding too often mocked that goal. Amendments that sought to degrade the very core of the fundamental right of freedom of expression were forced on the co-sponsors, who were attempting to protect the mandate of the Special Procedures. The resolution adopted attempted to legitimize the criminalization of expression. The United States was also deeply disappointed that the Council spent a disproportionate amount of time discussing Israel and was also concerned by the selection of some clearly biased individuals as mandate holders, which only harmed the credibility of the mechanism. The people of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and Myanmar would at least know that the international community was with them in their struggle against oppression. Regrettably, the people of Darfur were offered only a weak resolution that vastly understated the human rights and humanitarian crisis in Sudan. The elimination of the Independent Expert on the Democratic Republic of the Congo was also a step backward.

TERRY CORMIER (Canada), with regard to the resolution to renew the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, said Canada had been forced to call for a vote on that resolution and to abstain with many co-sponsors because of the adoption by vote of the hostile amendment L.39. Amendment L.39 undermined the mandate of the Special Rapporteur. It turned the Special Rapporteur's mandate on its head by attempting to fundamentally shift the focus of attention away from States as duty bearers. The job of the Special Rapporteur was not to police the actions of individuals – it was to monitor and support the compliance of States with their international human rights obligations.

SAMEH SHOUKRY (Egypt), speaking on behalf of the African Group with regard to the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, said the African Group attached great importance to freedom of expression and fully supported the extension of the mandate. While recognizing that freedom of expression was a cornerstone of society, this could not be achieved without respect of the human rights of everyone. Enacting guarantees against incitement where and when necessary on discrimination on any grounds were essential to maintain a healthy society. The African Group noted with growing concern trends to erode the human rights legal framework giving some priority to some rights and not others. The African Group supported the thrust of the draft resolution on freedom of expression; however, it deemed it necessary to the protection and respect of religion and belief. The Special Rapporteur would continue his valuable work ensuring a global approach while safeguarding human rights for all. It was regrettable that the Human Rights Council had to resort to a vote on this important subject. Nevertheless, the international community was still able to speak of an international solidarity conscience on one of the most pressing issues of modern times.

LADA PHUMAS (Thailand), while appreciating efforts by co-sponsors in drafting resolutions adopted at this session, hoped that in preparing such resolutions in the future, the main co-sponsors would aim to make the content of the resolutions more concise and action-oriented in order to facilitate the Council and the Special Procedures to better implement those resolutions in an effective and efficient manner. Thailand also encouraged the main co-sponsors to take a more open and cooperative approach, enhancing sufficient and constructive dialogues. Regarding resolution L.36 on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, as an immediate neighbour of that country, Thailand felt that the resolution could have been more measured, forward-looking and carefully calibrated to events in order to send out the right signal and message. Importantly, it should not have prejudged events that were still unfolding and should have acknowledged some of the positive developments that had taken place.

SONAM T. RABGYE (Bhutan) noted that all the resolutions adopted to date to renew the mandates of the Special Procedures recalled resolution 5/2 of the Council, which could only contribute to the effective functioning of these mechanisms. Bhutan appreciated the emphasis placed on the constructive engagement with States which was contained in the resolution concerning the mandate of the Independent Expert on minority issues, and concurred with delegations in saying that every situation must be considered against its own specificities, including the historical perspective and national legal systems. Bhutan also welcomed the resolution passed on the issue of climate change which would serve as a useful input.

MOHAMMAD ABU-KOASH (Palestine), speaking on behalf of the Arab Group, said that at the end of this session of the Council, the Arab Group thanked the Council President for the skill with which he had guided the Council during the session, as well as all those delegations that had joined the Arab Group's position. The Arab Group could not accept damage to religion and religious convictions and incitement to hatred based on the freedom of expression. That was something the Arab Group condemned, without distinction. The United States, which sought respect for democracy, should respect it itself, within this Council, in particular with regard to the resolution on the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the freedom of expression and opinion adopted by the Council last week. As for the Universal Periodic Review, which would begin with the consideration of the Arab State, Bahrain, the Arab Group supported the statements of the African Group and the Organization of the Islamic Conference that the best way would be for informal open-ended consultations to be conducted by the President, in order for the Council's actions to be transparent.

MASOOD KHAN (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), said the OIC attached the highest importance to the promotion and protection of freedom of expression. It was recalled that the OIC, along with the Arab and African Groups, had proposed an amendment to the resolution on the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression. The consultations led by Canada had been appreciated, but the OIC, the African Group and the Arab Group could not agree to them. An impression was being created that this amendment altered the focus away from violations by States to abuses of individuals and led to a policing function. This was not true. The amendment did not restrict freedom of expression, but rather strived to make it responsible. Such practices had to be curbed to avoid greater conflict in our societies. The amendment made the resolution comprehensive and holistic. The resolution was collectively owned by the Human Rights Council and all members needed to work together to ensure its effective implementation.

ANDREJ LOGAR (Slovenia), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that freedom of opinion and expression was one of the cornerstones of human dignity and the basis of a democratic society. Therefore the European Union once more confirmed the importance it continued to attach to the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the freedom of opinion and expression. In the European Union's view, the focus of the mandate had to remain on the promotion and protection of freedom of expression. The European Union, in a spirit of compromise, was ready to agree to including a reference to issues relating to religious and racial hatred explicitly in the text of the resolution. Unfortunately, that compromise had not been deemed sufficient. The amendment introduced in the text on behalf of the African Group, the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Arab Group was formulated in such a way that the focus of the mandate was shifted from protection of freedom of expression to limitations thereto. In the European Union's view, that was harmful. Moreover, the amendment had been introduced by Cuba at the very last minute, and its authors had not raised it during the five rounds of informal consultations, in a spirit of cooperation and negotiation in good faith. The European Union deeply regretted witnessing such an attack on this very important mandate. With the changes voted into the text, the European Union States, as well as Liechtenstein, Norway and Iceland, had had to withdraw their co-sponsorship of the resolution and had abstained in the voting.

MARIE-LOUISE OVERVAD (Denmark) said Denmark attached great importance to the adoption of the resolution on human rights while countering terrorism. With it the Council managed to address a number of the most central human rights aspects in relation to the fight against terrorism, notable issues like racial profiling and effective review in relation to listing of individuals and entities. Moreover, the absolute nature of the prohibition of torture was emphasized, which was notable. This, however, should not be interpreted as indicating that the prohibition of other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment was not absolute.

OMER DAHAB FADOL MOHAMED (Sudan) said Sudan aligned itself with the statements made by the Arab Group, the African Group and the Organization of the Islamic Conference. The Council had adopted unanimously the resolution on the situation in Sudan. Sudan thanked the Council for that and the sponsors, although the resolution did not reflect the positive developments on the ground in the south and in north and west Darfur. Sudan had also accepted the deployment of joint African Union-United Nations forces, and had shown its commitment to assist the deployment of those forces. The Council unfortunately did not reflect those important developments, nor did it reflect the fact that donors had not fulfilled their obligations with regard to financing of the troops. Finally, Sudan was surprised with the way in which Canada had described the Council's resolution on freedom of expression and opinion, saying that it turned the Special Rapporteur's mandate on its head. For its part, Sudan welcomed that resolution.

DAYAN JAYATILLEKA (Sri Lanka) said there was no need for expression of negativism or alarmism. The amendment to the resolution on the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression was not an effort to weaken or dilute the rights of freedom of expression as set out in the original draft. The amendment was modest and moderate. It was noted that several countries had voted in favour of the final text, despite differences on the amendment. This indicated that the text as a whole did not wreak havoc on the freedom of expression.

MASOOD KHAN (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), said that the Secretary-General of the OIC and OIC Member States had strongly condemned a sacrilegious documentary that had been released by a Dutch parliamentarian. The documentary tried to distort the message of the Koran and insulted the Prophet of Islam. Such insults and distortions could not be justified on the basis of freedom of opinion and expression. Three quarters of the population of the Netherlands believed that the documentary would worsen the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims. Images on heinous acts of terrorism around the world were interspersed with verses quoted out of context to stereotype the entire global Muslim community. That was xenophobic and religious intolerance. Europe should not allow the propagators of hatred to define the parameters for their civilized polities. The OIC appreciated the efforts made by the Dutch Government to stop the release of the documentary, as well as the statement by the European Union ministers issued in Slovenia which sharply rejected the equation of Islam with violence. While the Dutch Government had been proactive, it should do more. The OIC urged the Netherlands to complete its investigation about the civil and criminal implications of the release of the documentary and to initiate prosecution against the author of the documentary, under Dutch law, for inciting hatred against Muslims. The Council should explore new space to address the issue of defamation of religions beyond condemnations and adoption of resolutions; the OIC had consistently called for the drafting of a new instrument or convention on the subject.

ANDREJ LOGAR (Slovenia), speaking on behalf of the European Union, recalled that last weekend a discussion between several international delegates and human rights officials took place in Ljubljana on the documentary Fitna. The film equated Islam with violence which should be sharply rejected. The freedom of expression and freedom of religion were fundamental values which the European Union would not compromise on. All governments must do their utmost to restrain violence and aggression. The protection of all citizens, irrespective of their religions or belief, was expected in society. The European Union would continue its work to uphold these principles. Through freedom of expression, mutual understating and respect could be realized. The European Union actively promoted dialogue and mutual understanding and respect through a number of initiatives and instruments.

ALEJANDRO ARTUCIO, Vice President and Rapporteur of the Human Rights Council, introducing the draft report of the seventh session to the General Assembly, recalled that the report described the Council’s proceedings throughout the session, which began on 3 March. The document had been distributed as document A/HRC.7/L.10. It was noted that the resolutions and decisions adopted during the session were available in document A/HRC/7/L.11. During the session a wide variety of themes were addressed, and, among other important decisions, 18 members of the Advisory Council were elected and several mandate holders for the Special Procedures were appointed. In closing, the Council Rapporteur thanked all delegations and participants for their work as well as the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Secretariat for their valuable contribution.

DORU ROMULUS COSTEA, President of the Human Rights Council, said the Human Rights Council was about to embark on one of its most interesting exercises, that was the Universal Periodic Review. More clarity and details were required. It was hoped that these new things to come up would be positive. The President said he was fully confident that the Council members, observers and all stakeholders would contribute positively to further develop modalities in carrying out the business of the process. An intense process of consultations had also begun with the 32 members to first be reviewed by the Universal Periodic Review. It was also noted that the next regular session of the Council in June, the eighth session, would be the topic of a bureau meeting soon, as the programme for the session had to be looked into. Most probably there would be a three-week session in June, he noted.

SAMEH SHOUKRY (Egypt) expressed Egypt's appreciation to the High Commissioner for Human Rights expressing condemnation of the defamatory film by the Dutch parliamentarian. Egypt also welcomed her condemnation of any incitement to racial or religious hatred. Also commendable was the statement of the Secretary-General in that regard, as well as that by the European Union ministers issued in Slovenia, which had rejected the equation of Islam with violence. Egypt looked forward to the Netherlands and other Western countries creating legislation to allow for the criminal prosecution of such acts of hatred in the future.

Egypt, speaking on behalf of the African Group, said the African Group welcomed the work of the Council’s President towards consensus modalities for the Universal Periodic Review exercise. The African Group believed that some of those modalities were still a work in progress, and looked forward to early consultations on the remaining issues.

YURY BOICHENKO (Russian Federation) said the Russian Federation echoed the delegation of Egypt’s remarks concerning the modalities for the Universal Periodic Review exercise. The Russian Federation also believed that some of those modalities were still a work in progress, and looked forward to early consultations on the remaining issues. As to the appointment of mandate holders, the Russian Federation called on the President to clarify the issue of the automatic renewal of mandate holders who served for three years.

MASOOD KHAN (Pakistan), regarding the terms for Special Rapporteurs, noted that the consultative group was about to start its second session, therefore clarity in this matter was needed before then. The paper on the Universal Periodic Review process needed finishing touches. Finally, the September session coincided with Ramadan, and, now speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, they would appreciate it if the Secretariat would give consideration to changing the dates. Speaking again on its own behalf, Pakistan reiterated its condemnation of the Dutch Parliamentarian's documentary, and welcomed the High Commissioner's condemnation of it.

ANDREJ LOGAR (Slovenia), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the European Union saw no scope to discuss the reappointment of the mandate holders. They had in the past and continued to serve without a special reappointment.

MUNU MAHAWAR (India) appreciated consultations by the President on clarification of Universal Periodic Review modalities. India hoped that those modalities would be clarified as soon as possible. The consultations should be undertaken urgently therefore.

QIAN BO (China) said China also appreciated the President’s efforts with regard to the modalities of the Universal Periodic Review and urged the President to continue those efforts.

DORU ROMULUS COSTEA, President of the Human Rights Council, said that he agreed that the Universal Periodic Review papers posted on the Extranet did indeed represent a work in progress. They would almost certainly be adjusted and would also be changed after the first session. However, before that there would be more meetings to clarify what was left to be clarified. The issue of mandates also needed to be addressed, and would be. As for the dates of the September session, the concerns expressed about Ramadan would be taken into consideration by the secretariat.
__________

For use of information media; not an official record

HRC0846E